BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineer
    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


    Public Housing Takes Priority in Biden Spending Bill

    Engineers Found ‘Hundreds’ of Cracks in California Bridge

    Seven Key Issues for Construction Professionals to Consider When Dealing With COVID-19

    New Jersey School Blames Leaks on Construction Defects, May Sue

    US Homes Face Costly Retrofits for Induction Stoves, EV Chargers

    Review your Additional Insured Endorsement

    Navigating Abandonment of a Construction Project

    You Can Take This Job and Shove It!

    PA Supreme Court to Rule on Scope of Judges' Credibility Determinations

    Developers Can Tap into DOE’s $400 Million for Remote and Rural Clean Energy Projects

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

    What to do When the Worst Happens: Responding to a Cybersecurity Breach

    Building a Strong ESG Program Can Fuel Growth and Reduce Company Risk

    Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted

    Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions

    Project Delivery Methods: A Bird’s-Eye View

    Largest Dam Removal Program in US History Reaches Milestone

    Certificates as Evidence of Additional Insured Coverage Are All the Rage, But You Deserve Better

    Separation of Insureds Provision in CGL Policies

    NAHB Reports on U.S. Jobs Created from Home Building

    Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Fall to Lowest Since 2012

    Caveat Emptor (“Buyer Beware!”) Exceptions

    Georgia Appellate Court Supports County Claim Against Surety Company’s Failure to Pay

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    Blog Completes Fifteenth Year

    California Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Commissioner’s Authority to Regulate Replacement Cost Estimates

    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

    Courts Take Another Swipe at the Implied Warranty of the Plans and Specifications

    Green Buildings Could Lead to Liabilities

    Bill to Include Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Introduced in New Jersey

    UCF Sues Architects and Contractors Over Stadium Construction Defects

    Albert Reichmann, Builder of NY, London Finance Hubs, Dies at 93

    CA Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Exceptions to Interim Adverse Judgment Rule Defense to Malicious Prosecution Action

    Considering Stormwater Management

    After Sixty Years, Subcontractors are Back in the Driver’s Seat in Bidding on California Construction Projects

    Daily Reports – The Swiss Army Knife of Project Documentation

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    Microsoft Urges the Construction Industry to Deliver Lifecycle Value

    Failure to Comply with Contract Leaves No Additional Insured Coverage

    Did You Get a Notice of Mechanic’s Lien after Project Completion? Don’t Panic!

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    Not so Fast – Florida’s Legislature Overrules Gindel’s Pre-Suit Notice/Tolling Decision Related to the Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    New NEPA Rule Restores Added Infrastructure Project Scrutiny

    Litigation Roundup: “You Can’t Make Me Pay!”

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Data Is Critical for the Future of Construction

    California Commission Recommends Switching To Fault-Based Wildfire Liability Standard for Public Utilities

    Sustainable, Versatile and Resilient: How Mass Timber Construction Can Shake Up the Building Industry
    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

    Negligent Failure to Respond to Settlement Offer Is Not Bad Faith

    May 03, 2017 —
    The Ninth Circuit found that the insurer's negligent failure to respond to a settlement offer did not constitute bad faith. McDaniel v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4029 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017). McDaniel was the assignee of claims against GEICO assigned by the insured after settling a wrongful death suit. McDaniel alleged that GEICO unreasonably refused to accept a $100,000 policy limits offer. The case went to trial and a jury awarded McDaniel over $3 million against the insured. On August 7, 2009, McDaniel's attorney Steven Nichols extended a $100,000 policy limits settlement offer with a fifteen day acceptance deadline to GEICO's attorney Michael Griott. The parties subsequently agreed to extend the acceptance deadline to ten days following MacDaniel's service of responses to outstanding interrogatories, which Nichols hand-delivered to Griott on August 27, 2009. On September 1, 2009, Griott emailed GEICO claims adjuster Aldin Buenaventura with a letter attachment indicating that Nichols had submitted the requested interrogatories and, in bold and underlined text, that "[o]ur response to Plaintiff's policy limits demand is due on or before September 11, 2009. 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

    Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim

    July 19, 2017 —
    In Duarte v. Pacific Specialty Ins. (No. A143828; filed 6/12/17, ord. pub. 6/29/17) a California appeals court held that an insurer was not entitled to summary judgment on its rescission claim because the disputed questions in the insurance application were ambiguous. In Duarte, the insured/owner purchased a tenant-occupied property in Oakland. Several years later the tenant’s daughter moved in, and continued living there after the tenant died. The insured/owner served the daughter with an eviction notice and shortly thereafter applied for Owners, Landlords & Tenants (“OLT”) liability coverage. The tenant/daughter responded to the eviction notice by filing a habitability lawsuit, claiming emotional distress and physical injury, among other things. The insurer denied coverage and a defense, drawing a bad faith lawsuit for failure to defend and “wrongful cancellation” of the policy. The insurer answered and raised rescission as an affirmative defense, based on alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the OLT policy application. 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

    Wildfires Threaten to Make Home Insurance Unaffordable

    January 10, 2018 —
    More frequent and intense wildfires are making it harder for homeowners to find and keep insurance in California, a state regulator warned Thursday. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Flavelle, Bloomberg

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Nevada for Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    April 03, 2013 —
    Methodically analyzing the damage claims, the federal district court largely denied the insurers' motions for summary judgment for coverage of construction defect claims. Big-D Constr. Corp. v. Take It for Granite Too, 2013 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 8377 (D. Nev. Jan. 22, 2013). Big-D was the general contractor for a remodeling project of International Gaming Technologies' (IGT) building. Big-D subcontracted with Take it for Granite Too (TIFGT) to install various tiling and stonework on the interior and exterior of the building. After TIFGT began its stonework, a stone tile fill from an exterior wall. Over the next several months and after completion of TIFGT's work, two additional stones fell from exterior walls. IGT directed Big-D to replace TIFGT's stonework on the walls. Big-D notified TIFGT and requested that it make immediate repairs. TIFGT did not respond and eventually went out of business. Experts opined that the cause of the stones falling was efflorescence between the tile and the wall. Efflorescence occurred when the stone started to deteriorate, spall, and become soft. It was caused by water entering through an open joint and getting behind the stone tile. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

    March 01, 2011 —

    In a report published earlier this week Marisa L. Saber writes about the implied warranty of habitability in the context of construction defect litigation. The piece speaks of the difficulties in alleging tort theories against builders and vendors in light of Illinois’ expansion of the economic loss doctrine, and how the implied warranty of habitability may provide another avenue for recovery.

    Read Full Story...

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

    Sinking Buildings on the Rise?

    July 01, 2019 —
    By now everyone in the construction and insurance industries is familiar with the 58-story Millennium Tower building in San Francisco that has sunk 17 inches and tilted another 14 inches to the northwest. Another recent New York lawsuit alleges that a 58-story luxury Manhattan condo high-rise is also sinking and causing significant damage. With construction booming in the Southeast and other areas with questionable soils, sinking building cases may be on the rise. Given this reality, the issue of subsidence should be of paramount importance to every construction and insurance professional when insuring a project. Most insurance carriers will include a subsidence and/or other earth movement exclusion on a commercial general liability ("CGL") quote for insurance as a matter of course. Construction professionals (owners/developers, general contractors, and subcontractors) or their brokers may be under the mistaken impression that they have no choice but to accept these subsidence exclusions as part of a standard construction policy. This is not the case. To the contrary, most insurance carriers are willing to remove subsidence exclusions if the underwriters are provided with acceptable geotechnical/soils reports when considering the project. The insured construction professional often pushes back on the insurance carrier's request for soils reports because the insured sees the request as an unnecessary hassle, expense or unwelcome interference in the job. However, the carrier's soils review is designed to benefit everyone. If potential soils issues are discovered during the underwriting process they can be addressed at the outset of the project rather than after the project is built, which will typically cost substantially more to remedy. Moreover, a thorough analysis of the condition of the soils at the outset of the project allows the risk management team to recognize any potential issues and ensure that the proper coverage is obtained in order to provide protection down the road. Even if the insurance carrier charges more money to sign off on questionable soils after a review of the reports, the slight increase in premium is likely a worthwhile investment in the event of a subsidence loss. The lesson is that the insured should not blindly accept a subsidence exclusion and should negotiate its removal. The insured should provide its broker and the insurance carrier the information they need in order to make a fully-informed decision as it pertains to the soils. Once the insurance carrier has had the opportunity to review and sign off on the condition of the soil, the carrier should feel comfortable enough to remove any subsidence exclusions or other similar earth movement limitations. Subsidence is a relatively straightforward issue to deal with as long as the project team’s lawyers, brokers, risk managers and insurance company underwriters are working together toward the common goal of properly evaluating the risk and adequately insuring the project. This simple cooperative process between the entire risk management team could mean the difference between being covered or not covered in the event of a loss related to earth movement. Jason M. Adams, Esq. is Senior Counsel at Gibbs Giden representing construction professionals (owners/developers, contractors, architects, etc.) in the areas of Construction Law, Insurance Law and Risk Management, Common Interest Community Law (HOA) and Civil Litigation. Adams is also a licensed property and casualty insurance broker and certified Construction Risk & Insurance Specialist (CRIS). Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. Mr. Adams can be reached at jadams@gibbsgiden.com. The content contained herein is published online for informational purposes only, may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements, and does not constitute legal advice. Do not act on the information contained herein without seeking the advice of licensed counsel. The transmission of information by email, or any transmission or exchange of information over the Internet, or by any of the included links is not intended to create and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. This publication may not be reproduced or used in whole or in part without written consent of the author. Copyright 2019 © Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/30/24) – Life Science Construction to Increase, Overall Homeownership Is Majority Female, and Senators Urge Fed Chair to Lower Interest Rates

    February 26, 2024 —
    In our latest roundup, hospitality and real estate companies create living options, SEC questions some financial institutions on exposure to risks from CRE, renting shows signs of overtaking buying in the housing market, and more! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Insurer Liable for Bad Faith Despite Actions of Insured Contributing to Excess Judgment

    January 02, 2019 —
    Reversing the intermediate appellate court, the Florida Supreme Court held the insurer liable for bad faith despite imperfect actions by the insured. Harvey v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1705 (Fla. Sept. 20, 2018). Insured James Harvey was involved in an auto accident in which the other driver, 51 year old John Potts, was killed. Harvey's vehicle was registered in both his name and his business's name, and was covered under a $100,000 liability policy. Harvey reported the accident to his insurer, GEICO. The claim was assigned to a claims adjuster, Fran Korkus. 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