BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expert
    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


    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2024 Fall Forum Meeting in Pittsburgh

    ABC Chapter President Comments on Miami Condo Collapse

    Newark Trial Team Secures Affirmance of ‘No Cause’ Verdict for Nationwide Housing Manager & Developer

    Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels

    Additional Insured Obligations and the Underlying Lawsuit

    Reminder: Pay if Paid Not All Encompassing (but Could it be?)

    Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional

    Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes

    Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

    How Data Drives the Future of Design

    COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

    Quick Note: Don’t Forget To Serve The Contractor Final Payment Affidavit

    Construction Attorneys Tell DBR that Business is on the Rise

    Project-Specific Policies and Products-Completed Operations Hazard Extensions

    Licensing Mistakes That Can Continue to Haunt You

    OSHA Issues New Rules on Injury Record Keeping

    Ninth Circuit Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment to Insurer For Fortuitous Loss

    North Carolina Weakened Its Building Codes in 2013

    Attorney-Client Privilege in the Age of Cyber Breaches

    Biden’s Buy American Policy & What it Means for Contractors

    Policy Language Matters: New Jersey Court Bars Cleanup Coverage Under Broad Policy Terms

    A Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette Doctrine

    Pile Test Likely for Settling Millennium Tower

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014

    Party Cannot Skirt Out of the Very Fraud It Perpetrates

    Basement Foundation Systems’ Getting an Overhaul

    To Ease Housing Crunch, Theme Parks Are Becoming Homebuilders

    Defense Dept. IG: White House Email Stonewall Stalls Border Wall Contract Probe

    Changing Course Midstream Did Not Work in River Dredging Project

    Nonresidential Construction Employment Expands in August, Says ABC

    Louisiana Couple Sues over Defects in Foreclosed Home

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    California Beach Hotel to Get $185 Million Luxury Rebuild

    ASHRAE Seeks Comments by May 26 on Draft of Pathogen Mitigation Standard

    COVID-19 Business Closure and Continuity Compliance Resource

    Exculpatory Provisions in Business Contracts

    Arizona Court of Appeals Upholds Judgment on behalf of Homeowners against Del Webb Communities for Homes Riddled with Construction Defects

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

    HOA Foreclosure Excess Sale Proceeds Go to Owner

    What Makes Building Ventilation Good Enough to Withstand a Pandemic?

    California’s Wildfire Dilemma: Put Houses or Forests First?

    The Godfather of Solar Predicts Its Future

    PFAS: From Happy Mistake to Ubiquity to Toxic Liability (But is there coverage?)

    Don’t Ignore a Notice of Contest of Lien

    Lien Attaches To Landlord’s Interest When Landlord Is Party To Tenant Improvement Construction Contract

    Long-Planned Miami Mega Mixed-Use Development Nears Initial Debut

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office on Another Successful MSJ!

    Can Businesses Resolve Construction Disputes Outside of Court?

    Because I Haven’t Mentioned Mediation Lately. . .
    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

    North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies Breadth of Contractual Liability Coverage

    October 30, 2018 —
    North Dakota’s highest court delivered a blow to Mid-Continent Casualty Company in Borsheim Builders Supply, Inc. v. Manger Insurance Co., ruling that a contract between a policyholder and general contractor fit the insured contract exception of contractual liability. Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policies generally exclude an insured’s contractual assumption of another party’s liability. The exclusion typically contains an exception for what is known as an “insured contract.” However, many policyholders and insurance claims personnel often miss the significance of the insured contract exception. This was the case in Borsheim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

    Banks Rejected by U.S. High Court on Mortgage Securities Suits

    January 12, 2015 —
    The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and Nomura Holdings Inc. (8604), refusing to derail federal government lawsuits that seek billions of dollars over the sale of risky mortgage-backed securities. The justices today turned away an appeal by four banks, including units of RBS and Nomura, in a case stemming from the collapse of two credit unions that owned more than $1.7 billion in those securities. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Stohr, Bloomberg
    Mr. Stohr may be contacted at gstohr@bloomberg.net

    Professional Malpractice Statute of Limitations in Construction Context

    June 26, 2023 —
    In an interesting dichotomy, which statute of limitations applies to professional malpractice claims relating to construction claims, i.e., in the construction context? Is it the two year statute of limitations in Florida Statute s. 95.11(4)( a) that governs professional malpractice claims or is it the four year statute of limitations in Florida Statute s. 95.11(3)(c) that governs actions “founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement toot real property”? This dichotomy led the appeal in American Automobile Ins. v. FDH Infrastructure Services, LLC, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1091a (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). This case sadly involved a construction accident that led to deaths. A contractor was engaged to install an antenna on an existing television tower. The contractor hired an engineering firm “to perform a structural analysis as to the stability and weight-bearing capacity of the tower. [The engineer] was contractually obligated to assess the proposed rigging plan…to lift the loads necessary to construct the antenna.” FDH Infrastructure Services, supra. Unfortunately, after the installation of the antenna commenced, the rigging components failed resulting in workers falling to their deaths. After insurers paid out benefits, they sued the engineering firm under equitable and contractual subrogation theories. The engineering firm moved for summary judgment arguing the subrogation claims were barred by the professional malpractice two year statute of limitations in section 95.11(4)(a). The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the engineering firm. 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

    Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker

    December 07, 2020 —
    On November 10, 2020, a New York federal judge dismissed an insurer’s counterclaims seeking to cap its exposure under a $15 million sublimit and an order estopping the policyholder from pursuing any additional amounts. In February 2017, Plaintiff Pilkington North America, Inc. (Pilkington), suffered between $60 and $100 million in damage from a tornado that struck its glass manufacturing factory in Illinois. Pilkington sought coverage for its loss under a commercial property and business interruption policy issued by Defendant Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company (MSI). Pilkington also claimed its insurance broker, Aon Risk Services Central, Inc. (Aon), is liable for faulty advice provided while brokering the policy. Aon’s negligence allegedly gave way to MSI’s fraudulent revision of the insurance policy, which caused the losses from the tornado to not be fully compensable. Pilkington’s fraud and faulty brokering claims stem from MSI’s revision of an endorsement contained in the policy. The revision changed the wording of a windstorm sublimit. Allegedly, Aon was informed by MSI of the changes and failed to inform Pilkington that the revision would substantially reduce coverage for windstorms, including tornados. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

    Toronto Skyscraper With $1.2 Billion of Debt Has Been Put in Receivership

    November 16, 2023 —
    A landmark condominium project in one of Toronto’s ritziest neighborhoods has been put into receivership after construction delays and cost overruns. Construction of the 85-story tower will be taken over by a court-appointed receiver after its owners, developer Sam Mizrahi and investor Jenny Coco, defaulted on part of the project’s nearly C$1.7 billion in debt ($1.2 billion), according to a Wednesday order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Two funds run by South Korea-based IGIS Asset Management Co. applied for the receivership. Another IGIS fund will extend at least another C$315 million to continue work on the project, court documents said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ari Altstedter, Bloomberg

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

    May 30, 2018 —
    In Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, No. SC16-1420, 2017 WL 6379535 (Fla. Dec. 14, 2017), the Florida Supreme Court addressed whether the notice and repair process set forth in chapter 558, Florida Statutes, constitutes a “suit” within the meaning of a commercial liability policy issued by Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (“C&F”) to Altman Contractors, Inc. (“Altman”). The Court found that because the chapter 558 pre-suit process is an “alternative dispute resolution proceeding” as included in the definition of “suit” in the policy by C&F to Altman, C&F had a duty to defend Altman during the chapter 558 process, prior to the filing of a formal lawsuit. Chapter 558, titled “Construction Defects,” sets forth procedural requirements before a claimant may file a construction defect action. It requires a claimant to serve a written notice of claim on the applicable contractor, subcontractor, supplier, and/or design professional prior to filing a construction defect lawsuit. The legislature intended for Chapter 558 to be an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in certain construction defect matters allowing an opportunity to resolve the claim without further legal process. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Garcia, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Garcia may be contacted at daniel.garcia@grsm.com

    Federal Court Sets High Bar for Pleading Products Liability Cases in New Jersey

    November 11, 2024 —
    Products liability is an area of law that both sides of the aisle vigorously litigate. Like in most litigation, products liability claims provide subrogation attorneys with an important means of prosecuting cases against manufacturers, sellers, and other entities in the stream of commerce. Of course, these claims also come with numerous “buyer beware” requirements. New Jersey allows products liability claims and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (District Court) clarified how such claims should be plead in Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. a/s/o David Krug vs. Stihl, Inc., No. 22-05893, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178804 (D. N.J.). After becoming subrogated to the rights of its insured, Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Cambridge) filed suit against Stihl, Inc. (Stihl) in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, Law Division. Stihl then removed the case to federal court. Once in federal court, Stihl filed a motion to dismiss the action. The District Court granted the motion, doing so in part with prejudice and in part without prejudice. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    "Occurrence" May Include Intentional Acts In Montana

    June 22, 2016 —
    The Montana Supreme Court found that policy language defining "accidents may include intentional acts." Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Fisher Builders, Inc., 2016 Mont. LEXIS 269 (Mont. Sup. Ct. April 19, 2016). Jerry and Karen Slack hired Fisher Builders to build a remodeled home located on the site of their home at Flathead Lake. The existing home was an aged vacation home. The County zoning regulations required the remodeled home to incorporate the existing structure. The permit issued to the Slacks required the existing deck to remain unchanged. Fisher elevated the existing home structure on steel beams to pour a new foundation. Fisher began to dismantle the walls while the structure was resting on the beams, and found an infestation of carpenter ants. The ant-infested planks were cut out, apparently in order to salvage what usable materials he could from the remaining structure. The ant-infested boards were subsequently burned. Eventually, the deck collapsed. 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