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


    Construction Litigation Roundup: “It’s None of Your Business.”

    Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Arkansas Law

    Research Project Underway to Prepare Water Utilities for Wildfire Events

    Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment

    Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

    Alabama Supreme Court Reverses Determination of Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

    Should CGL Insurer have Duty to Defend Insured During Chapter 558 Notice of Construction Defects Process???

    Privacy In Pandemic: Senators Announce Covid-19 Data Privacy Bill

    April Rise in Construction Spending Not That Much

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052: The “Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013.”

    Court Holds That Self-Insured Retentions Exhaust Vertically And Awards Insured Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Stringfellow Site Coverage Dispute

    Defending Against the Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine – Liability Considerations

    ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of National Debt Limit Suspension

    Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

    Florida’s “Groundbreaking” Property Insurance Reform Law

    Colorado Senate Voted to Kill One of Three Construction Defect Bills

    Biden’s Solar Plans Run Into a Chinese Wall

    No Coverage for Collapse of Building

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/10/24) – Hotels Integrate AI, Baby-Boomers Stay Put, and Insurance Affects Housing Market

    Remodel Gets Pricey for Town

    S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

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

    Wall Failure Due to Construction Defect Says Insurer

    Designers “Airpocalyspe” Creations

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052 Dies in Committee

    Florida Lien Law and Substantial Compliance vs. Strict Compliance

    Study Finds San Francisco Bay is Sinking Faster than Expected

    Hurricane Damage Not Covered for Home Owner Not Named in Policy

    Manhattan Condo Resale Prices Reach Record High

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    A Chicago Skyscraper Cements the Legacy of a Visionary Postmodern Architect

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds That the Implied Warranty of Habitability Does Not Extend to Subcontractors

    Waive Not, Want Not: Waivers and Releases on California Construction Projects

    The Contingency Fee Multiplier (For Insurance Coverage Disputes)

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part II

    Flood-Threat Assessment Finds Danger Goes Far Beyond U.S. Homes

    Rescission of Policy for Misrepresentation in Application Reversed

    Is it the Dawning of the Age of Strict Products Liability for Contractors in California?

    Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery

    Tesla Finishes First Solar Roofs—Including Elon's House

    Greystone on Remand Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment To Bar Coverage For Construction Defects

    Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications

    Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent

    Nobody Knows What Lies Beneath New York City

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

    Fraudster Sells 24-Bedroom ‘King’s Speech’ London Mansion

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill
    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

    Perrin Construction Defect Claims & Trial Conference

    June 11, 2018 —
    Richard Glucksman, Esquire, Partner of the Los Angeles firm Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger, will be moderating the panel, “Green Building/LEED: An Overview and Claims Discussion” at the Perrin Construction Defect Claims & Trial Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. The panel will be discussing the following topics:
    • Risk and claims case studies including solar and SIPs (Structural Insulated Panels)
    • Green Building/LEED and The Law: Review of National Claims/Lawsuits
    • AIA Documents for Sustainable Projects
    Thursday, June 21st, 2018 Four Seasons Hotel 3960 S Las Vegas Blvd Las Vegas, NV 89119 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull Obtain Dismissal of Claim Against Insurance Producer Based Upon Statute of Limitations

    August 20, 2019 —
    Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice on behalf of their client after oral argument for a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull represented an insurance broker who was sued by one of its customers, a property management company, for failure to procure a correct policy of insurance that would have provided coverage for an underlying class action lawsuit asserting statutory violations. In their motion, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the Plaintiff failed to file the lawsuit within the applicable two year statute of limitations outlined in the Illinois Insurance Producers Act 735 ILCS 5/13-214.4. Based on a recent ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court in the case of Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krop, 2018 IL 122556, ¶ 13, reh’g denied (Nov. 26, 2018), Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the statute of limitations began to accrue at the moment the allegedly non-conforming policy was delivered to the customer Plaintiff. In this case, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the subject policy was purchased and received before it became effective on November 25, 2015. Thus, at the absolute latest, the statute of limitations expired two years later on November 25, 2017. Since the lawsuit was not filed until October 4, 2018, the Plaintiff was approximately 10 months too late to assert a valid claim. In response, the Plaintiff tried to factually distinguish the Krop case by arguing it involved a claim against a captive agent rather than a broker. Plaintiff further argued that a broker maintains a fiduciary duty to its clients and, therefore, the two year statute of limitations applied in Krop did not apply to a broker. Plaintiff also argued the Illinois Insurance Placement Liability Act was unconstitutional. Reprinted courtesy of Jessica Burtnett, Traub Lieberman and Jessica N. Kull, Traub Lieberman Ms. Burtnett may be contacted at jburtnett@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kull may be contacted at jkull@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Receiving a $0 Verdict and Still Being Deemed the Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    May 24, 2018 —
    Low and behold, a party can be the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees even if that party is awarded $0. That’s right, even if the party is awarded a big fat zero, they can still be the prevailing party for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees. This is because a party is the prevailing party if they prevail on the significant issues in the case. A party can prevail on the significant issues even if that party is awarded $0. Whoa! For example, in Coconut Key Homeowner’s Association, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1045a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), a homeowner sued her homeowner’s association claiming the association breached its governing documents. There was a basis for fees under Florida’s homeowner’s association law (and there likely was a basis under the governing documents). At trial, the jury held that the association breached its governing documents, but awarded the homeowner nothing ($0). The trial court also issued injunctive relief in favor of the homeowner. The homeowner claimed she should be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees; however, this was denied by the trial court based on the $0 verdict and no fees were awarded to the homeowner. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Counsel Investigating Coverage Can be Sued for Invasion of Privacy

    January 28, 2019 —
    In Strawn v. Morris, Polich & Purdy (No. A150562, filed 1/4/19), a California appeals court held that policyholders could state a claim for invasion of privacy against an insurer’s coverage counsel and law firm, where the counsel had disseminated inadvertently produced tax returns to forensic accountants while evaluating coverage. In Strawn, a couple’s home was destroyed by fire and the husband was prosecuted for arson, but the criminal case was dropped. Notwithstanding, their insurance claim was denied on the ground that the husband intentionally set the fire and fraudulently concealed his actions. In addition to the insurance company, the insureds also named the carrier’s coverage counsel and his firm in the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, alleging causes of action for elder financial abuse and invasion of privacy. 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

    Las Vegas, Back From the Bust, Revives Dead Projects

    June 11, 2014 —
    For almost five years, the desert plot at the western edge of the Las Vegas valley was home to hulking steel skeletons -- ghostly ruins of a construction project halted by the recession. Now the 106-acre (43-hectare) site bustles with hundreds of workers building the first phase of Downtown Summerlin, an office, entertainment and retail complex that’s scheduled to open in October. Howard Hughes Corp. (HHC) revived the development last year after the previous owner, General Growth Properties Inc., shut it down in 2008. The commercial real estate market in Las Vegas, littered with vacant buildings and abandoned construction sites by overreaching developers during the U.S. property crash, is coming back to life as the local economy improves and tourists return to the nation’s gambling capital. Blackstone Group LP’s deal to buy the Cosmopolitan resort and Genting Bhd. (GENT)’s proposed resurrection of an abandoned project on Las Vegas Boulevard are further signs of investor confidence in the nascent recovery. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Louis, Bloomberg
    Mr. Louis may be contacted at blouis1@bloomberg.net

    Short on Labor, Israeli Builders Seek to Vaccinate Palestinians

    February 01, 2021 —
    Israeli builders want the government to vaccinate Palestinian construction workers to help rally a battered housing industry. While Israel is racing to inoculate its citizens, the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority has no vaccination program in place. Beyond being a critical health issue, the gap is also an economic problem because the Israeli construction sector relies heavily on Palestinian workers who’ve been cut off repeatedly from building sites due to lockdowns. Before the pandemic, about 65,000 Palestinians worked for Israeli contractors inside Israel, accounting for a third of their workforce. Closures and restrictions on both sides led to a 30% drop in housing starts despite rising demand. Reprinted courtesy of Ivan Levingston, Bloomberg and Fadwa Hodali, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Franchisors Should Consider Signing a Conditional Lease Assignment Rather Than a Franchisee’s Lease

    November 17, 2016 —
    In Franchise & High Properties, LLC v. Happy’s Franchise, LLC, a 2015 decision issued by the Court of Appeals in Michigan, the franchisor, Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, signed a five-year lease for the commercial space to be occupied by its franchisee, Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc. The franchisor did so to secure a right of first refusal to purchase the property and to enforce the franchise agreement to have the lease assigned to the franchisor if the franchisee defaulted. The issue in the case was whether the term “tenant” referred solely to Happy’s Pizza #19 or whether it also included Happy’s Franchise as a co-tenant. “Tenant” was defined as follows: “Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc., 29102 Telegraph Road, Suite 607, Southfield, MI 48034, the lessee, and Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as `Franchisor’), hereinafter designated as the Tenant.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Herold, Real Estate Litigation Blog
    Mr. Herold may be contacted at rherold@swlaw.com

    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

    April 01, 2011 —

    The question of what circumstances must be in place for construction defects to be covered in a general commercial liability (CGL) policies is being raised by the courts and the legislature in South Carolina. The Insurance Journal reports that the American Insurance Association as well as the Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America are speaking out on the issue.

    The problem seems to be centered on what defines an “occurrence.” CGL policies were not meant to cover faulty workmanship, according to the filing by the South Carolina Supreme Court. In January of this year, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the ruling in Crossmann Communities v Harleysville Mutual declaring that “Respondents cannot show the damage here was the result of an occurrence. Rather, the damage was a direct result and the natural and expected consequence of faulty workmanship; faulty workmanship did not cause an occurrence resulting in damage.” They focused their attention on the word “accident,” stating that there is a fortuity element that is not diminished.

    The South Carolina legislature reacted by producing a bill that would add new language directly negating the ruling by the Supreme Court. The South Carolina bill S-431 would change the definition of an occurrence in regards to construction defects as follows: “For a liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional, an ‘occurrence’ means, at a minimum: (1) an accident; or (2) continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition or substance. No additional requirement of a fortuitous event is needed to constitute an ‘occurrence.’”

    S-431 is currently residing in the House Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

    Read the full story...

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