BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut engineering consultant
    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


    My Top 5 Innovations for Greater Efficiency, Sustainability & Quality

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA

    Pennsylvania Sues Firms to Recoup Harrisburg Incinerator Losses

    Michael Baker Intl. Settles Federal Pay Bias Allegations

    Fourteen Years as a Solo!

    California Statutes Authorizing Public-Private Partnership Contracting

    Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies

    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

    Potential Extension of the Statutes of Limitation and Repose for Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    Proposed Changes to Federal Lease Accounting Standards

    Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability

    Public-Private Partnerships: When Will Reality Meet the Promise?

    Florida Federal Court to Examine Issues of Alleged Arbitrator Conflicts of Interests in Panama Canal Case

    What I Love and Hate About Updating My Contracts From an Owners’ Perspective

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    A New Study on Implementing Digital Visual Management

    Disputed Facts on Cause of Collapse Results in Denied Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

    Seattle Crane Strike Heads Into Labor Day Weekend After Some Contractors Sign Agreements

    Winning Attorney Fees in Litigation as a California Construction Contractor or Subcontractor

    NYC Condo Skyscraper's Builder Wins a Round -- With a Catch

    New Hampshire Applies Crete/Sutton Doctrine to Bar Subrogation Against College Dormitory Residents

    Newmeyer & Dillion Gets Top-Tier Practice Area Rankings on U.S. News – Best Lawyers List

    Civil RICO Case Against Johnny Doc Is Challenging

    The Problem With Building a New City From Scratch

    What is the Effect of an Untimely Challenge to the Timeliness of a Trustee’s Sale?

    Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition

    Caltrans Reviewing Airspace Program in Aftermath of I-10 Fire

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: KATE GOLDEN

    Land Planners Not Held to Professional Standard of Care

    Window Installer's Alleged Faulty Workmanship On Many Projects Constitutes Multiple Occurrences

    Supreme Court Opens Door for Challenges to Older Federal Regulations

    Out of Eastern Europe, a Window Into the Post-Pandemic Office

    Happenings in and around the 2016 West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Commentary: How to Limit COVID-19 Related Legal Claims

    Mold Due to Construction Defects May Temporarily Close Fire Station

    Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

    Gibbs Giden is Pleased to Announce Four New Partners and Two New Associates

    American Council of Engineering Companies of California Selects New Director

    California Assembly Bill Proposes an End to Ten Year Statute of Repose

    Concrete Worker Wins Lawsuit and Settles with Other Defendant

    Trump’s Infrastructure Weak

    Land a Cause of Home Building Shortage?

    Chicago Cubs Agree to Make Wrigley Field ADA Improvements to Settle Feds' Lawsuit

    Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

    Will Superusers Future-Proof the AEC Industry?

    The CA Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review of McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.) As to Whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the Exclusive Remedy for All Defect Claims Arising Out of New Residential Construction

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Several Lewis Brisbois Partners Recognized by Sacramento Magazine in List of Top Lawyers

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    Construction Defect or Just Punch List?
    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

    Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act

    September 13, 2021 —
    On August 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the Idaho property of Michael and Chantell Sackett was a regulated wetlands under the then-controlling 1977 EPA rules defining “waters of the United States,” and that the Sacketts dredging and filling of their property was subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or EPA. EPA’s case, as it has been for many years, was based on 2008 EPA and Corps inspection reports and Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test as the controlling opinion in the 2006 Supreme Court case, Rapanos v. United States. The Sacketts’ argument was that the text of the Clean Water Act, as interpreted by Justice Scalia and three other Justices, was controlling, but for several years, the Ninth Circuit has relied on Justice Kennedy’s opinion in these CWA controversies. The court’s opinion expressed considerable sympathy for the Sacketts as they negotiated the thicket of EPA’s regulatory processes, but it could not disregard circuit precedent. A few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled, in a unanimous decision, that EPA’s then extant administrative compliance orders were arbitrary and capricious. (See Sackett v. US, 566 US 120 (2015).) After that decision, the case was remanded to the federal district court, where it lingered for several more years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims

    November 20, 2013 —
    On October 24, 2013 the Colorado Court of Appeals granted a rare interlocutory appeal in a multi-family residential construction defect case. The Court of Appeals accepted the case ofTriple Crown at Observatory Village Association, Inc. v. Village Homes of Colorado, Inc.(2013 WL 5761028) as an interlocutory appeal after the parties briefed and obtained rulings from the trial court that compelled the case to binding arbitration in lieu of a jury trial on all issues. The appellate decision of October 24, 2013 did not decide the merits of the case, but discussed the issues to be decided in the eventual merits decision. The significance of the issues presented and the interlocutory nature of this appeal both make this case worth watching for further appellate proceedings. The core issue in this appeal was the applicability of Colorado’s Uniform Arbitration Act (C.R.S. § 13-22-201, et seq.), based on recorded Declarations filed by the developer. The Declarations mandated that the HOA arbitrate any design/construction disputes with the developer. Immediately prior to suit, the Association sought to amend the Declarations in order to avoid the arbitration process for these claims. The interlocutory appellate issues resulted from the trial court’s order compelling the arbitration over the objections of the Association. The trial court’s decision was based on a reading of the Colorado Revised Non-Profit Corporation Act (“CRNPC,” at C.R.S. § 7-127-107), which was found applicable to the Association. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
    W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

    Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders

    May 11, 2020 —
    For years, when faced with damage or injury spanning several policy periods, excess general liability insurers have argued that all potentially applicable underlying policies must be exhausted before the excess drops down to provide coverage (“horizontal exhaustion”). Insureds, on the other hand, insist that they are entitled to immediately access an excess policy for any given policy year, if that year’s underlying policy has exhausted (“vertical exhaustion”). Vertical exhaustion not only enables insureds to directly tap into the excess insurance for which they paid substantial premiums, but also enables the insured to moderate risk given that different lower level policies might (1) be needed for other claims, (2) have larger self-insured retentions, or (3) have other less favorable coverage provisions. Allowing an insured to proceed via vertical exhaustion would also eliminate the heavy administrative and logistical burden that could result from having to pursue and exhaust all underlying coverage on multi-year claims. In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court has come down in favor of policyholders and vertical exhaustion. The Montrose case involved contamination that allegedly occurred between 1947 and 1982 and different liability insurance towers (comprised of primary and excess layers) for each year. The insured, Montrose, maintained a tower of insurance coverage, year by year, and faced claims asserting damage that spanned several decades. Montrose sought coverage from excess insurers under a vertical exhaustion approach. Not surprisingly, Montrose’s excess insurers insisted that horizontal exclusion was required and that Montrose was required to exhausted all other policies with lower attachment points in every single involved policy period. The California Supreme Court ruled in Montrose’s favor, holding that the insured may insist upon full coverage from an excess insurer once the layer directly below it has exhausted. The Court reasoned that the burden of spreading the loss among insurers is one that is appropriately borne by insurers, not insureds. Reprinted courtesy of Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion and James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Packer may be contacted at alan.packer@ndlf.com Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar Announced for 2014

    October 30, 2013 —
    Organizers describe the even as “America’s largest, America’s favorite, America’s best construction defect seminar.” And in 2014, they will hold the twenty-first of these annual construction defect seminars. As for size, last year’s event comprised 1,614 attendees, travelling not only from across the county, but from outside the United States as well. West Coast Casualty is beginning to line up its speakers for next May’s seminar. The organizers are asking speakers to submit proposed topics by November 25 and the list will be finalized on December 15. The theme for the event will be “Back to Business … Working Smarter … Not Harder.” While West Coast Casualty is looking for topics that focus on the central theme, they are also interested in presentations on emerging trends in construction defect litigation. In addition to seminars, there will be booths for many of the companies in the construction defect resolution industry, demonstrating products and services of use to professionals in the field. This gives attendees a chance for less-structured interaction than is possible within a seminar. Continuing education credits were granted for the 2013 seminar by a lengthy list of organizations, which included the Bar Associations of 22 states and the Departments of Insurance of 35. The 2014 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar will be held May 15 and 16 at the Disneyland Hotel and Resort. During the seminar comes the awarding of the prestigious Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence, named in honor of the late Judge Jerrold S. Oliver, who was known for his skills as a mediator. In 2013, the “Ollie” was awarded to Margie Luper in acknowledgement of her contributions to the betterment of the construction defect resolution field. The recipients of the Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence are selected by the votes of about 6,000 industry professionals. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Holding the Bag for Pre-Tender Defense Costs

    February 02, 2017 —
    For a variety of reasons, additional insureds (and even named insureds) under commercial general liability policies will sometimes wait months, and even years, to tender the defense of a claim or lawsuit, incurring significant legal fees in the interim. When the claim finally is tendered, a dispute often arises over who should pay the pre-tender defense costs. Surprisingly, there is very little Florida legal authority specifically dealing with this issue. However, the recent federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals case of EmbroidMe.com, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America, No. 14-10616, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 368 (11th Cir. Jan. 9, 2017), applying Florida law, addresses the issue head-on and provides CGL carriers with a large hammer in refusing to pay pre-tender fees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John J. Kozak, Esq., Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Kozak may be contacted at john.kozak@csklegal.com

    Policy Lanuage Expressly Prohibits Replacement of Undamaged Material to Match Damaged Material

    March 09, 2020 —
    Construing an all-risk Businessowners Policy, the court found that the policy language did not required replacement of undamaged material match materials that were damaged. Pleasure Creek Townhomes Homeowners' Ass'n v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 2019 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1095 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2019). The policy covered the Association's 14 townhome buildings. In June 2017, a hail storm damaged siding on all 14 buildings. An appraisal panel included the cost to replace the undamaged, faded siding in its appraisal award so that it would match the new siding. American Family refused to pay this component - which was appraised at about $211,382 - of the award. An exclusion in the policy provided,
    We will not pay to repair or replace undamaged material due to mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material.
    We do not cover the loss in value to an property due to mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material.
    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

    Pass-Through Subcontractor Claims, Liquidating Agreements, and Avoiding a Two-Front War

    April 26, 2021 —
    Subcontractor claims happen. When those subcontractor claims are prompted by owner actions or responsibilities, the general contractor must always be vigilant to plan for and work to avoid a two-front war in which the general contractor is pushing the owner for recovery while at the same time disputing the subcontractor’s entitlement. Cooperation between the general contractor and the subcontractor and avoiding that two-front war can be accomplished through pass-through claims and ideally liquidating agreements. A pass-through claim is a claim by the subcontractor who has suffered damages by the owner with whom it has no contract, presented by the general contractor. A liquidating agreement or subcontract “liquidating language” goes a step further than simply a pass-through claim by “liquidating” the general contractor’s liability for the subcontractor’s claim and limiting the general contractor’s liability to the value recovered against the owner. The distinction between pass-through claims generally and use of liquidating agreements or language is described in greater detail below. Pass-through subcontractor claims are routine in construction and an important, common sense approach to deal with ever-present changes and the unexpected that can have cost and time implications. Despite the common sense basis for subcontractor pass-through claims, there are important legal considerations that must be addressed, and critical planning required, starting with the subcontract clauses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bradley Sands, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Sands may be contacted at bsands@joneswalker.com

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    May 16, 2018 —
    In All Green Electric v. Security National Ins. Co. (No. B279456, filed 3/19/18, ord. pub. 4/17/18), a California appeals court ruled that the impaired property exclusion barred coverage for a claim based on the insured’s failure to tighten a loose bolt that resulted in stray magnetic fields interfering with operation of an MRI machine and allegedly threatening the health of personnel. All Green was an electrical contractor hired to perform wiring for an MRI unit installation. Stray magnetic fields interfered with the unit’s operation. Efforts to remediate the problem included installing shielding and ultimately relocating the unit to another room. An expert finally determined that a bolt left loose by All Green was causing the magnetic field, which disappeared when the bolt was properly tightened. The facility sought damages for negligence, including costs for unnecessary modifications and repairs, payments to outside sources for substitute mammography testing, operational costs and expenses, damage to reputation, lost profits, and the loss of an HMO contract. 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