BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration 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


    Appeal of an Attorney Disqualification Order Results in Partial Automatic Stay of Trial Court Proceedings

    Insurance Companies Score Win at Supreme Court

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

    Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

    Cybersecurity “Flash” Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

    The Credibility of Your Expert (Including Your Delay Expert) Matters in Construction Disputes

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

    Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied

    Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Is Still in Trouble, Two Major Reviews Say

    Tennessee Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    Seabold Construction Ties Demise to Dispute with Real Estate Developer

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Under Kentucky Law

    U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stop - In the Name of the Law!”

    Intellectual Property And Employment Law Best Practices: Are You Covering Your Bases In Protecting Construction-Related Trade Secrets?

    Res Judicata Bars Insured from Challenging Insurer's Use of Schedule to Deduct Depreciation from the Loss

    No Hiring Surge by Homebuilders Says Industry Group

    No Jail Time for Disbarred Construction Defect Lawyer

    Civil Engineers: Montana's Infrastructure Grade Declines to a 'C-'

    Rhode Island Sues 13 Industry Firms Over Flawed Interstate Bridge

    2018 California Construction Law Update

    Supplement to New California Construction Laws for 2019

    Second Circuit Affirms Win for General Contractor on No Damages for Delay Provision

    Insurer Defends Denial in Property Coverage Dispute Involving Marijuana Growing Operations

    Colorado Court of Appeals Defines “Substantial Completion” for Subcontractors’ Work so as to Shorten the Period of Time in Which They Can Be Sued

    Commercial Real Estate in 2023: A Snapshot

    Limiting Services Can Lead to Increased Liability

    Natural Hydrogen May Seem New in Town, but It’s Been Here All Along

    The Economic Loss Rule and the Disclosure of Latent Defects: In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis

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

    Construction Contract’s Scope of Work Should Be Written With Clarity

    Colorado Requires Builders to Accommodate High-Efficiency Devices in New Homes

    11th Circuit Affirms Bad Faith Judgement Against Primary Insurer

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

    Home-Building Climate Warms in U.S. as Weather Funk Lifts

    Discussing Parametric Design with Shajay Bhooshan of Zaha Hadid Architects

    Were Condos a Bad Idea?

    Bankruptcy on a Construction Project: Coronavirus Edition

    The Treasures Inside Notre Dame Cathedral

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Tar Escaping From Roof

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds that Subrogation Waiver Does Not Violate Statute Prohibiting Limitation on Tort Liability in Construction Contracts

    If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors

    Meet Your Future Team Members: AI Agents

    Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds

    NYT Points to Foreign Minister and Carlos Slim for Collapse of Mexico City Metro

    Construction Defect or Just Punch List?

    Lien Law Change in Idaho

    Nationwide Immigrant Strike May Trigger Excusable Delay and Other Contract Provisions

    Denver Officials Clamor for State Construction Defect Law

    Let the 90-Day Countdown Begin
    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

    Is It Time to Revisit Construction Defects in Kentucky?

    December 11, 2013 —
    The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that faulty workmanship on a construction project could not be considered an accident under a commercial general liability policy. The first reason they cited, according to Carl A. Salisbury of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, was that a majority of states had concluded that “claims of faulty workmanship, standing alone, are not ‘occurrences’ under CGL policies.” Mr. Salisbury points out a problem with that: “an overwhelming majority of state Supreme Courts that have considered the question have held that faulty workmanship can be (and usually is) accidental and, therefore, is a covered ‘occurrence.’’ He also notes that in four states, the legislatures have passed laws confirming that faulty workmanship is an occurrence. The “majority viewpoint” cited by the Kansas Supreme Court is currently held by four other states, while twenty states hold the view that construction defects are accidents and thus occurrences. Since 2010, five states have reversed their stance, coming to what is now the clear majority view, including South Carolina. The Kansas court relied on a South Carolina decision that Mr. Salisbury described as “since repudiated” by “both the legislature and Supreme Court of that state.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Social Distancing and the Impact on Service of Process Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

    April 13, 2020 —
    Service of process usually requires person-to-person contact and is an essential part of civil procedure. It notifies the defendant of the legal proceedings against him/her and establishes jurisdiction. “Process” refers to the documents that must be served on a defendant. If service of process is not performed pursuant to the governing rules of civil procedure, a lawsuit cannot proceed. Service of Process in NJ and PA Personal service is required to be the first attempted means of service in New Jersey. If personal service is not successful, then service may be made by mailing a copy of the process via registered or certified mail with return receipt requested to the defendant’s usual place of abode or business/place of employment, or to an authorized agent. The party attempting to serve the defendant by mail can choose to mail the process by regular mail as well, and if the defendant refuses to accept or claim the registered or certified copy, and the regular mail copy is not returned, then service is considered effectuated. Pennsylvania allows for a defendant to be served via personal service by handing a copy to the defendant or by delivering a copy to an adult family household member at the defendant’s residence. Pennsylvania also permits service of process by mail. Process can be served by mail requiring a signature of the defendant. If the mail is unclaimed, alternative service must be attempted. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Robert Devine, James Burger and Susan Zingone Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Zingone may be contacted at zingones@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Know What’s Under Ground and Make Smarter Planning Decisions

    July 29, 2019 —
    A Finnish experimentation project developed a framework for classifying ground conditions for building and infrastructure construction. It will help anticipate the future cost of foundation laying during the early stages of city planning. The ground conditions of an area can have a substantial effect on the costs and the environmental impacts of constructing buildings and infrastructure. At early stage, urban designers don’t typically have enough data to make smart decisions about zoning in that respect as obtaining that data is time-consuming and hence also costly. Consequently, an experimentation project called MAKU-digi: Making the costs of land use visible devised a method for automating the analysis of ground conditions. I had the pleasure of interviewing Juha Liukas, Lead Advisor at Sitowise, and Hilkka Kallio, Geologist at Geological Survey of Finland (GTK), about the project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    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

    Res Judicata Bars Insured from Challenging Insurer's Use of Schedule to Deduct Depreciation from the Loss

    June 10, 2024 —
    The insured was barred by res judicata from filing a second lawsuit challenging the insurer's method of establishing the amount of the loss. Burke v. GeoVera Spec. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9186 (5th Cir, April 16, 2024). On August 29, 2021, Hurricane Ida caused wind damage to the Burkes' home. They filed a claim with their insurer, GeoVera Specialty, and received payment. In calculating the payment, GeoVera Specialty adjusted the damage claim pursuant to its Roof System Payment Schedule, which lists the criteria used in reducing roof damage claims based on depreciation. Based on that schedule, GeoVera Specialty reduced the roof damage component of the Burkes' claim by forty-eight percent. In March 2022, the Burkes filed suit alleging that GeoVera Specialty undervalued their claim. On September 8, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit after reaching a settlement, which the district court granted. 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

    #6 CDJ Topic: Construction Defect Legislative Developments

    December 30, 2015 —
    Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger discussed Right to Repair developments occurring in Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and Colorado in their article, “Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s ‘Right to Repair Statutes.” Read the full story... Texas also had changes that affected construction defect claims, as covered by David H. Fisk of Coleman & Logan PC: “Before filing a lawsuit or initiating an arbitration proceeding pertaining to a construction defect, a condominium association in Texas with eight or more units must now comply with the newly added Section 82.119 to Chapter 82 of the Texas Property Code. This is in addition to compliance with the Texas Residential Construction Liability Act (RCLA) and any preconditions included in the condominium association’s declarations.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ninth Circuit Rules Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test of Implied Certification under the False Claims Act Mandatory

    May 13, 2019 —
    For those contractors in the government arena, read on. The False Claims Act (“FCA”) was enacted to deter knowingly fraudulent actions by contractors which resulted in a loss of property to the Government. Intent to defraud with resulting financial hardship was required. Contrary to popular misconception, the statute was not designed to punish all false submissions to the Government simply because those submissions, or claims, are later found to be false. The statute’s inclusion of the requisite element of knowledge is consistent with this notion:
    1. A defendant must submit a claim for payment to the Government;
    2. the claim must be false or fraudulent;
    3. the defendant must have known the claim was fraudulent when it was submitted (also known as scienter); and
    4. the claim must have caused the Government to pay out money.
    See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). Despite these explicit elements (in addition to common law elements of fraud), over the last two decades, contractors have seen ever-expanding theories of FCA recovery presented by qui tam plaintiffs and the Government. For example, under the FCA, the false “claim” evolved over time: the claim no longer needs to be an express false claim (i.e. the truthfulness of the claim is a direct condition of payment); the claim can be “implied” misrepresentation or “half-truth”. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Meredith Thielbahr, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Ms. Thielbahr may be contacted at mthielbahr@grsm.com

    COVID-19 Case Remanded for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy

    September 14, 2020 —
    The federal district court remanded to state court a loss of rent claim because the amount in controversy requirement was not met. Geragos & Geragos Fine Arts Bldg., LLC v. Travelers Indemn. Co., 2020 U.S Dist. LEXIS 127427 (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2020). Geragos suffered loss of rental income due to the COVID-19 tenant relief measures implemented in Los Angeles. The tenant relief orders would remain in effect for the duration of the emergency period, the end date of which was not presently set. Geragos submitted a claim for loss of rental income to Travelers. When the claim was denied, Geragos sued in state court. Travelers removed to federal district court. Geragos moved to remand the case back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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