BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractor
    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


    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

    What Happens When a Secured Creditor Files a Late Claim in an Equity Receivership?

    Congratulations to our 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    The Importance of Engaging Design Professional Experts Early, with a Focus on Massachusetts Law

    Insurers Must Defend Allegations of Faulty Workmanship

    Georgia Coal-to-Solar Pivot Shows the Way on Climate Regs

    New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: Tenth Circuit Upholds the “Complaint Rule”

    California to Require Disclosure of Construction Defect Claims

    Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

    Seven Trends That Impact Commercial Construction Litigation in 2021

    End of an Era: Los Angeles County Superior Court Closes the Personal Injury Hub

    Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling Provision of Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations

    NTSB Outlines Pittsburgh Bridge Structure Specifics, Finding Collapse Cause Will Take Months

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    Builder Pipeline in U.S. at Eight-Year High: Under the Hood

    2018 California Construction Law Update

    Viva La France! 2024 Summer Olympics Construction Features Sustainable Design, Including, Simply Not Building at All

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    Engineering, Architecture, and Modern Technology – An Interview with Dr. Jakob Strømann-Andersen

    NY Appeals Court Ruled Builders not Responsible in Terrorism Cases

    New York Court of Appeals Addresses Choice of Law Challenges

    Jason Poore Receives 2018 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award

    Court Holds That Trimming of Neighbor’s Trees is Not an Insured Accident or Occurrence

    New York Court Permits Asbestos Claimants to Proceed Against Insurers with Buyout Agreements

    Anatomy of an Indemnity Provision

    Can Your Small Business Afford to Risk the Imminent Threat of a Cyber Incident?

    There's No Such Thing as a Free House

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    Civility Is Key in Construction Defect Mediation

    LA’s $1.2 Billion Graffiti Towers Put on Sale After Bankruptcy

    Farewell Capsule Tower, Tokyo’s Oddest Building

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims

    Don’t Overlook Leading Edge Hazards

    Acord Certificates of Liability Insurance: What They Don’t Tell You Can Hurt You

    Seattle Expands Bridge Bioswale Projects

    A Survey of New Texas Environmental and Regulatory Laws Enacted in the 88th Session (Updated)

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Strikes a Deathblow to Substantial Factor Causation in Most Cases; Is Asbestos Litigation Next?

    Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety

    The Independent Tort Doctrine (And Its Importance)

    Jason Smith and Teddie Arnold Co-Author Updated “United States – Construction” Chapter in 2024 Legal 500: Country Comparative Guides

    In UK, 16th Century Abbey Modernizes Heating System by Going Back to Roman Times

    The Job is Substantially Complete, the Subcontract was Never Signed, the Subcontractor Wants to be Paid—Now What?

    CGL Insurer’s Duty to Defend Insured During Pre-Suit 558 Process: Maybe?

    How to Protect the High-Tech Home

    Sustainable, Versatile and Resilient: How Mass Timber Construction Can Shake Up the Building Industry

    Boston Catwalk Collapse Injures Three Workers

    Fixing the Problem – Not the Blame
    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

    Improperly Installed Flanges Are Impaired Property

    February 16, 2016 —
    Answering certified questions from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court found there was no coverage for flanges that leaked after installation. U. S. Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., 2015 Texas LEXIS 1081 (Dec. 4, 2015). U. S. Metals sold Exxon 350 custom-made, stainless steel, weld-neck flanges for use in refineries. Testing after installation showed the flanges leaked and did not meet industry standards. Exxon decided to replace the flanges to avoid risk of fire and explosion. For each flange, this involved stripping the temperature coating and insulation, cutting the flange out of the pipe, removing the gaskets, grinding the pipe surfaces smooth for re-welding, replacing the flange and gaskets, welding the new flange to the pipes, and replacing the temperature coating and insulation. The replacement process delayed operation of the diesel units for several weeks. Exxon sued U.S. Metal for over $6 million as the cost of replacing the flanges and $16 million as damages for lost use of the diesel units during the process. U.S. Metals settled with Exxon for $2.2 million and then sought indemnification from its liability insurer, Liberty Mutual. 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

    Federal Court Holds That Other Insurance Analysis Is Unnecessary If Policies Cover Different Risks

    September 28, 2020 —
    In Greater Mutual Insurance Company v. Continental Casualty Company, 2020 WL 5370419 (S.D.N.Y. September 8, 2020), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had occasion to consider the “other insurance” provisions of a commercial general liability policy, issued by Greater Mutual Insurance Company (“GNY”), and a directors and officers (“D&O”) policy, issued by Continental, to the same insured. The GNY policy covered, inter alia, property damage caused by an occurrence, as well as “personal advertising injury,” defined to include “[t]he wrongful eviction from, wrongful entry into, or invasion of the right of private occupancy of a room, dwelling or premises that a person occupies, committed by or on behalf of its owner, landlord or lessor.” The Continental D&O policy covered claims for wrongful acts, including “wrongful entry or eviction, or other invasion of the right to private occupancy. . . .” Unlike the GNY policy, however, the Continental policy expressly excluded coverage for damage to tangible property. In the underlying action, the plaintiffs alleged that the insured engaged in construction work to fix a leak from a terrace on the seventeenth floor. In doing so, the insured accessed the plaintiffs’ roof terrace. The plaintiffs alleged that the construction workers installed and stored construction materials on the roof terrace, making the plaintiffs unable to access the terrace. Plaintiffs also alleged that their deck furniture may have suffered damage, and that the workers had a “direct line of sight” into their unit, resulting in the plaintiffs having to leave their unit frequently. Causes of action were for property damage, constructive eviction, partial constructive eviction, and invasion of privacy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

    Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act

    March 13, 2023 —
    A recent Miller Act payment bond decision out of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. f/u/b/o Civil Construction, LLC v. Hirani Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, 58 F.4th 1250 (D.C. Circ. 2023), dealt with the issue of whether a subcontractor’s superintendent constitutes recoverable “labor” within the meaning of the Miller Act and compensable as a cost under the Miller Act that typically views labor as on-site physical labor. The issue is that the Miller Act covers “[e]very person that has furnished labor or material in carrying out work provided for in a contract.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253 quoting 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(1). The Miller Act does not define labor. The subcontractor claimed labor includes actual superintending at the job site. The surety disagreed that a superintendent’s presence on a job site constitutes labor as the superintendent has to actually perform physical labor on the job site to constitute compensable labor under the Miller Act. The subcontractor argued its subcontract and the government’s quality control standards required detailed daily reports that verified manpower, equipment, and work performed at the job site. It further claimed its superintendent had to continuously supervise and inspect construction activities on-site: “[the] superintendent had to be on-site to account for, among other things, hours worked by crew members, usage and standby hours for each piece of equipment, materials delivered, weather throughout the day, and all work performed. These on-site responsibilities reflected the government’s quality control standards, under which the superintendent as ‘the most senior site manager at the project, is responsible for the overall construction activities at the site…includ[ing] all quality, workmanship, and production of crews and equipment.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253-54. 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

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Hacking Claim Under E&O Policy

    July 25, 2022 —
    On June 9, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held, on summary judgment, that an insured was not entitled to coverage under a Professional Errors and Omissions (E&O) policy for loss allegedly resulting from a hacking incident. See Construction Fin. Admin. Servs., Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 19-0020, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103042 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2022). Applying North Carolina and Pennsylvania law, the court reasoned that: (1) coverage was barred by the policy’s unauthorized computer access, or “breach,” exclusions; and (2) the insured violated a condition in the policy that required the insurer’s consent to settlements and the violation prejudiced the insurer. The insured, Construction Financial Administration Services, Inc. (CFAS), was a third-party fund administrator for construction contractors. In April 2018, the CFAS received email requests from what it believed to be one of its clients, SWF Constructors (SWF), to disburse $1.3 million from an SWF account to a foreign company. CFAS authorized the payments, despite not having received a copy of any executed agreement between SWF and the foreign company. After the funds were disbursed, SWF advised that it had not authorized or requested the payments to the foreign company. In response, CFAS placed approximately $1.2 million of recovered and borrowed funds into the SWF disbursement account. SWF then sent a letter advising CFAS that the requests from the foreign company did not include documentation required under the contract between SWF and CFAS. It was later determined that the emails had been initiated by a fraudster who had gained unauthorized access to the sender’s email account. Reprinted courtesy of Celestine Montague, White and Williams LLP and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP Ms. Montague may be contacted at montaguec@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected

    September 05, 2022 —
    [1]Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), a joint venture of Dragados USA and Tutor Perini, entered into a $1.4 billion contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to replace the Highway 99 viaduct. In December 2013, a tunnel boring machine (“TBM”) bearing the moniker “Bertha,” then the largest TBM ever built, measuring 425 feet long and 57 feet in diameter, struck an underground pipe. Shortly after the impact, Bertha overheated and eventually could no longer make forward progress. A massive repair effort ensued causing a 2.5-year delay in reaching substantial completion. WSDOT sued STP for the delay, seeking liquidated damages of $57 million. In response, STP argued its delay was excusable because it was caused by Bertha’s impact with the pipe, and the steel well casing was a Differing Site Condition (DSC) undisclosed in the contract documents. STP asserted counterclaims against WSDOT, alleging breach of contract and seeking $300 million in damages. Ultimately, a jury found that the steel well casing on the pipe was not a DSC, foreclosing STP’s excusable delay defense and counterclaims, and resulting in a $57 million verdict, plus interest, in favor of WSDOT. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

    The New Jersey Theme Park Where Kids’ Backhoe Dreams Come True

    April 13, 2017 —
    There is probably only one place in America where an eight-year-old can ride a carousel whose seats look like excavator buckets, then swipe at bowling pins with a mini-digger—where, for a ticket price of less than $40, he or she can operate a backhoe, drive a drum-roller, and ride the telescoping arm of a construction lift 50 feet into the air to admire the Philadelphia skyline. That place is a small theme park in West Berlin, N.J., called Diggerland USA. Diggerland opened for the season in March, but even on a recent visit when the park was closed, its discordant appeal was obvious: Small children get to climb into the cabs of heavy-duty construction equipment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark, Bloomberg
    Mr. Clark may be followed on Twitter @pat_clark

    Bank Sues over Defective Windows

    July 31, 2013 —
    The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis replaced 498 windows in its building in 2008. According to a consultant, they all have to be replaced again. The bank estimates that the damages will exceed $1.5 million, and they are suing the contractor who installed them, the window manufacturer, and others. The windows were replaced to provide greater blast protection. But in 2011, the bank found that the special glass used was beginning to delaminate. The Federal Reserve is seeking to have all of the windows replaced “with windows that meet the specifications of the contract.” McCarthy Building Construction says that it is attempting to resolve things. The contractor noted that it is “continuing to work with the Federal Reserve and other parties and hope we can resolve this matter in a timely manner.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Creation of San Fransokyo

    June 17, 2015 —
    Some of the most awe inspiring buildings and urban environments started off on paper and, these days, on computer screens. Think Babylon or even Pierre Charles L’Enfant’s Washington, D.C.. Most of those structures and cityscapes were designed for human habitation, but not all. Some were designed purely for our imaginations, like Minecraft, which those of you with young ones might be familiar with. Another more recent example though is Big Hero 6, about a science-whiz named Hiro (pronounced “hero,” get it) who journeys from boyhood to manhood and saves the world along the way with his robot pal Baymax. The movie is set in foreign-yet-familiar “San Fransokyo.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com