BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield 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


    Coverage Established for Property Damage Caused by Added Product

    Hold on Just One Second: Texas Clarifies Starting Point for Negligence Statute of Limitations

    Louisiana Couple Sues over Defects in Foreclosed Home

    Employee Handbooks—Your First Line of Defense

    Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Collapse Claim

    Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work

    Florida SB 2022-736: Construction Defect Claims

    Iowa Court Holds Defective Work Performed by Insured's Subcontractor Constitutes an "Occurrence"

    Northern District of Mississippi Finds That Non-Work Property Damages Are Not Subject to AIA’s Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    Collapse Claim Dismissed

    New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Insurers’ Bid to Overturn a $400M Decision

    Prevent Costly Curb Box Damage Due on New Construction Projects

    Comparative Breach of Contract – The New Benefit of the Bargain in Construction?

    ENR Northwest’s Top Contractors Survey Reveals Regional Uptick

    Architect Plans to 3D-Print a Two-Story House

    Construction Termination Part 3: When the Contractor Is Firing the Owner

    Construction Defect Lawsuits Hinted for Dublin, California

    Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast

    The Drought Is Sinking California

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    Chinese Billionaire Developer Convicted in UN Bribery Case

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    Pinnacle Controls in Verano

    Coverage Denied Where Occurrence Takes Place Outside Coverage Territory

    Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    English v. RKK- There is Even More to the Story

    GIS and BIM Integration Will Transform Infrastructure Design and Construction

    Three lawyers from Haight were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Action Needed: HB24-1230 Spells Trouble for Colorado Construction Industry and its Insurers

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    The Reptile Theory in Practice

    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    Reminder: Know Your Contractor Licensing Rules

    Narrow House Has Wide Opposition

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    Los Angeles Is Building a Future Where Water Won’t Run Out

    Coverage Denied for Ensuing Loss After Foundation Damage

    What is a Subordination Agreement?

    Downtown Sacramento Building Riddled with Defects

    Mental Health and Wellbeing in Construction: Impacts to Jobsite Safety

    Illinois Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect Claim Triggers Initial Grant of Coverage

    Comply with your Insurance Policy's Conditions Precedent (Post-Loss Obligations)

    Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Collapse Coverage Fails
    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. Drawing 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

    Benefits to Insureds Under Property Insurance Policy – Concurrent Cause Doctrine

    December 08, 2016 —
    The Florida Supreme Court in Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co., Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly S582a (Fla. 2016) gave really good news to claimants seeking recovery under a first-party all-risk property insurance policy. The Court held that the concurrent cause doctrine and not the efficient proximate cause doctrine was the proper theory of recovery to apply when multiple perils—an excluded peril and a covered peril-combined to create a property loss. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

    BIM Legal Liabilities: Not That Different

    February 10, 2020 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome Scott P. Fitzsimmons. Scott is an attorney with the construction law firm Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, where he represents contractors, subcontractors, owners, and engineers. He is also a LEED AP and an instructor for AGC of D.C., where he teaches BIM Contract Negotiation and Risk Allocation as part of AGC’s Certificate of Management, Building Information Modeling program. When a new technology is introduced to the construction industry, contractors inevitably ask themselves one question “Great, how can this new gadget get me into trouble?” Building Information Modeling (BIM) is exactly the kind of technology that raises this fear. But, BIM has been around for a few years now, and the construction industry has done a good job of curtailing the fear of unanticipated legal liability. Nevertheless, contractors should be aware of the pitfalls BIM introduces and should know how to limit their risk arising from this new “gadget.” Often described as “CAD on Steroids,” BIM is truly much more than a simple design program. Along with early clash detection, BIM provides time and cost integration; calculates energy efficiency; and assists building maintenance long after project completion. Unlike CAD, BIM also modifies the collaborative nature of a construction project. Thus, subcontractors no longer review a design, submit shop drawings, and go to work. Rather, subcontractors are brought into the design process early in the project and often are asked to contribute to the design long before construction begins. Asking a contractor or subcontractor to provide design services appears to shift the roles of an architect and a contractor. So, the questions abound: Is a contractor now responsible for design? Can the contractor be held responsible for defective design? Do not fret. To date, there has been only one advertised case addressing BIM liability. The reason is simple. For almost a hundred years, the United States Supreme Court has held that contractors are not responsible for defective design on a traditional design-bid-build project. Using BIM, therefore, should not modify a contractor’s responsibility. But, to ensure that your obligations do not extend beyond construction, all BIM requirements should be in writing and made part of your contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Standard For Evaluating Delay – Directly from An Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeal’s Opinion

    October 04, 2021 —
    Sometimes, it is much better to hear it from the horse’s mouth. That is the case here. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeal’s (ASBCA) opinion in Appeals of -GSC Construction, Inc., ASBCA No. 59402, 2020 WL 8148687 (ASBCA November 4, 2020) includes an informative discussion of a contractor’s burden when it encounters excusable delay and, of importance, the standard for evaluating delay. It’s a long discussion but one that parties in construction need to know, appreciate, and understand. EVERY WORD IN THIS DISCUSSION MATTERS. Construction projects get delayed and with a delay comes money because time is money. Many claims are predicated on delay. These can be an owner assessing liquidated damages due to a delayed job or a contractor seeking its costs for delay. Either way, the standard for evaluating delay and the burdens imposed on a party cannot be understated and, certainly, cannot be overlooked. For this reason, here is the discussion on evaluating delay directly from the horse’s mouth in the Appeal of-GSC Construction, Inc.:
    The critical path is the longest path in the schedule on which any delay or disruption would cause a day-for-day delay to the project itself; those activities must be performed as they are scheduled and timely in order for the project to finish on time. Wilner v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 241, 245 (1991). In Yates-Desbuild Joint Venture, CBCA No. 3350 et al., 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,870, our sister board compiled an excellent and very helpful synopsis of the standards for evaluating delay claims, which I adopt nearly verbatim among the discussion that follows.
    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

    Miller Law Firm Helped HOA Recover for Construction Defects without Filing a Lawsuit

    July 16, 2014 —
    According to a press release published on the PR Newswire, The Miller Law Firm “recovered $910,000 for the 1635 California Owners' Association for construction defects without ever filing a complaint.” William Nagle, Special Master & Mediator, facilitated the settlement “a year after putting the builder on notice under SB 800, California’s Right to Repair Law.” “Independent forensic expert inspections revealed building standard violations ranging from improperly installed gutters resulting in water intrusion in the units project wide, active leaks, standing water and inadequate gutters resulting in staining and efflorescence on the garage walls, balcony, and tile grout, discoloration and extensive cracking in the stucco project wide, inadequate weather stripping with evidence of condensation staining at windows, window frames and adjacent paint, inadequate ventilation, and ADA violations including loose glass guardrails and in regards to accessible rooftop common areas,” according to the press release. “This case settled prior to any formal mediation and I credit the diligence of both the Association and builder counsel,” Nagle stated. “Tom Miller is one of the most knowledgeable and respected plaintiffs' lawyers in the construction defect area. And I compliment both counsel on their preparation and cost-effective handling of the case in reaching a fair and reasonable result for their respective clients." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    "Ordinance or Law" Provision Mandates Coverage for Roof Repair

    May 16, 2018 —
    The Tennessee Court of Appeals found that the insured was entitled to coverage under the policy's "ordinance or law" provision for repairs to prevent a future collapse of both the damaged and undamaged portions of the building. Jefferson Cnty. Schools v. Tenn. Risk Mgmt. Trust, 2018 Tenn. app. LEXIS 138 (Tenn. Ct. App. March 15, 2018). A major rainstorm caused a portion of Building 8, an aging vocation building at a high school, to collapse. Building 8 was covered through Tennessee Risk Management up to $100,000. Excess claims were covered by Travelers Indemnity Company. The policy included an "ordinance or law" provision providing for coverage of expenses "caused by the enforcement of any ordinance or law." Further, the insurer agreed to pay for the loss to any undamaged portions of a building caused by the enforcement of any ordinance or law that required the construction or repair of buildings. 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

    Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides

    March 28, 2012 —

    A number of news sources have reported on the recent death of Nevada construction defect attorney, Nancy Quon. Ms. Quon was implicated in a recent scandal in which a group conspired to control homeowner associations in order to divert construction defect lawsuits to the members of the conspiracy.

    Ms. Quon was found dead in her bathtub. The details are still under investigations. She and her boyfriend were accused of a failed arson/suicide scheme in 2010. Ms. Quon survived an attempt to burn down her home. Subsequently, her boyfriend obtained some gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GBH) for her, as part of another failed suicide attempt.

    Subsequent to Ms. Quon’s death, David Amesbury was found in California dead by hanging. Mr. Amesbury took a plea deal in the case, and he had admitted his role in providing legal and construction contracts to firms in the conspiracy. He was accused of fixing HOA elections.

    Read the full story…

    Read the full story…

    Read the full story…

    Read the full story…

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

    Court Finds Matching of Damaged Materials is Required by Policy

    April 02, 2024 —
    The court granted, in part, the insured's motion for summary judgment by finding that matching roof tiles were required under the policy. Bertisen v. Travelers Home and Marine Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3907 (D. Colo. Jan. 8, 2024). The insureds sued Travelers for breach of contract, common law bad faith, and unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. They alleged that their residence was damaged by a hailstorm and that Travelers breached their policy and acted in bad faith in the handling of the claim. The insureds demanded an appraisal to determine the "amount of loss" under the policy and an appraisal award was issued. Travelers then denied payment for all roof tiles that were contemplated by the appraisal award. 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

    Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers

    July 27, 2020 —
    Businesses contemplating moving to a virtual workplace in this post-COVID-19 world must consider the legal ramifications of such decisions. Virtual workplaces may provide businesses with many benefits, such as cost savings, access to a more geographically diverse worker pool and the possibility of more flexible employment relationships. But a virtual workplace may also include hidden employment-related issues, costs, and traps. This is especially so for California-based companies. This article identifies some of the significant employment-law issues related to transitioning to a virtual workplace. Specifically, this article analyzes three scenarios: (1) employers seeking to have their workers continue working from home; (2) workers desiring to continue working from home — and specifically, seeking to work outside of California; and (3) the hiring of new employees. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel F. Fears, Payne & Fears and Raymond J. Nhan, Payne & Fears Mr. Fears may be contacted at dff@paynefears.com Mr. Nhan may be contacted at rjn@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of