BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    New York Developer’s Alleged Court Judgment Woes

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Undocumented Change Work

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

    Survey: Workers Lack Awareness of Potentially Hazardous Nanomaterials

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

    Construction Law Client Advisory: What The Recent Beacon Decision Means For Developers And General Contractors

    Study May Come Too Late for Construction Defect Bill

    Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

    The Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC) and the Construction Defect Claims Managers Association (CDMA) Annual Construction Defect Seminar

    What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

    Discussion of the Discovery Rule and Tolling Statute of Limitations

    The (Jurisdictional) Rebranding of The CDA’s Sum Certain Requirement

    Request for Stay Denied in Dispute Over Coverage for Volcano Damage

    New California Construction Law for 2019

    WCC and BHA Raised Thousands for Children’s Cancer Research at 25th West Coast Casualty CD Seminar

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Recognized Among The Top 50 Construction Law Firms TM of 2024 by Construction Executive

    Finding an "Occurrence," Appellate Court Rules Insurer Must Defend

    Pa. Contractor Pleads No Contest to Prevailing-Wage Charges, Pays Workers $20.7M

    Washington State Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision on Spearin Doctrine

    Vermont Supreme Court Finds COVID-19 May Damage Property

    Forecast Sunny for Solar Contractors in California

    Georgia House Bill Addresses Construction Statute of Repose

    The Regulations on the Trump Administration's Chopping Block

    Know Your Obligations Under Both the Prime Contract and Subcontract

    Contractor’s Claim for Interest on Subcontractor’s Defective Work Claim Gains Mixed Results

    Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis Obtain Affirmation of Final Summary Judgment

    Celebrating Excellence: Lisa Bondy Dunn named by Law Week Colorado as the 2024 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants

    Homeowner Sues Brick Manufacturer for Spalling Bricks

    Stacking of Service Interruption and Contingent Business Interruption Coverages Permitted

    Repairs Commencing on Defect-Ridden House from Failed State Supreme Court Case

    A Good Examination of Fraud, Contract and Negligence Per Se

    EPA Announces Decision to Retain Current Position on RCRA Regulation of Oil and Gas Production Wastes

    Lake Texoma, Texas Condo Case may go to Trial

    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    Breaking Down Homeowners Association Laws In California

    Home Numbers Remain Small While Homes Get Bigger

    Ivanhoe Cambridge Plans Toronto Office Towers, Terminal

    Hudson River PCB Cleanup Lands Back in Court

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    Ambitious Building Plans in Boston

    Update Coverage for Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    Home Buyer May Be Third Party Beneficiary of Property Policy

    Suit Against Broker for Securing Inadequate Coverage Dismissed on Statute of Limitations Grounds

    Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

    ConsensusDOCS Hits the Cloud

    Eleven WSHB Lawyers Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute

    CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Sinking Floor Does Not Meet Strict Definition of Collapse

    August 17, 2020 —
    The court determined that the sinking of the insured's floor caused by termites and rot deterioration did not meet the homeowners policy's definition of collapse. Stewart v. Metro. Lloyds Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111527 (S.D. Tex. June 24, 2020). Beatrice Stewart, the homeowner, heard a loud bang one night as she lay in bed. The next day, she found that the floor near her bathroom and hallway had sunk and the house was sitting lower. She admitted the house never completely fell down. Upon investigation, Lloyds found that rot in the floor joists and subfloor decking were caused by a combination of termite damage and exposure to moisture. Lloyds denied the claim. Stewart sued. Lloyds argued the policy required an "entire collapse" of the building or any part of a building, which did not occur here. The policy defined "collapse" as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building." The record did not show that any part of Stewart's floor caved in. 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

    Business Interruption Claim Upheld

    April 01, 2015 —
    A business interruption claim survived an appeal after it was determined the claim was satisfactorily presented to the trial court. Citadel Broadcasting Corp. v. Axis U.S. Ins. Co., 2015 La. App. LEXIS 274 (La. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2015). When Hurricane Katrina hit on August 29, 2005, the insured owned three radio stations that broadcast in and around New Orleans. All three stations suffered property damage and were off the air for varying periods of time. The insured's policy with Axis covered both physical damage and business interruption (BI) losses. The policy also insured contingent business interruption income (CBI). Both ordinary BI and CBI losses were covered under a 365 day extended period of indemnity (EPI). 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

    Subprime Bonds Are Back With Different Name Seven Years After U.S. Crisis

    January 28, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- The business of bundling riskier U.S. mortgages into bonds without government backing is gearing up for a comeback. Just don’t call it subprime. Hedge fund Seer Capital Management, money manager Angel Oak Capital and Sydney-based bank Macquarie Group Ltd. are among firms buying up loans to borrowers who can’t qualify for conventional mortgages because of issues such as low credit scores, foreclosures or hard-to-document income. They each plan to pool the mortgages into securities of varying risk and sell some to investors this year. JPMorgan Chase & Co. analysts predict as much as $5 billion of deals could get done, while Nomura Holdings Inc. forecasts $1 billion to $2 billion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jody Shenn, Bloomberg
    Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    January 12, 2015 —
    The federal district court, district of Hawaii, recently granted the insured's motion for remand. Catholic Foreign Mission Society of Am., Inc. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., Civ. No. 14-00420, Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Remand and Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (D. Haw. Dec. 30, 2014) [Order here]. [Full disclosure - our office represents the insured, Maryknoll]. Maryknoll was sued in several lawsuits filed in Hawaii state court by victims of alleged sexual abuse occurring as far back as the 1950s by members of the clergy. Maryknoll was insured during these periods under liability policies issued by various carriers. The successor of Royal Globe Insurance Company, Arrowood Indemnity Company, agreed to defend some of the underlying lawsuits, but declined to defend others. The Travelers Companies, Inc. refused to defend. 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

    New Defendant Added to Morrison Bridge Decking Lawsuit

    March 26, 2014 —
    The Morrison Bridge in Multnomah County, Oregon, has added a new company to their lawsuit regarding problems with the slip-resistant FRP decking, according to The Oregonian. The county has already named the installer, the supplier, and the manufacturer. Now, they have added Hardesty & Hanover, LLP, the company “that contracted with the decking manufacturer to provide engineering and design for the project.” The Oregonian reported that “the county has identified a construction design professional who can testify that Hardesty & Hanover made errors that contributed to the Morrison Bridge's damage,” according to the amended complaint. First, Conway construction (the deck installer) filed suit against the decking manufacturer and supplier. Then, the “county inserted itself into the suit last fall,” stated The Oregonian, and “is seeking more than $2 million to repair or replace the decking, plus damages.” A trial is scheduled for February 2015. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing

    June 26, 2014 —
    The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's holding that the insurer had no duty to defend claims arising out of the insureds' installation of defective steel framing in an apartment building. Regional Steel Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., No. B245961(Cal. Ct. App. May 16, 2014) [decision here]. Regional Steel was a subcontractor for providing reinforced steel to the columns, walls, and floors of an apartment building under construction. Regional used 90 degree and 135 degree seismic hooks as approved by the general contractor, JSM Construction, Inc. The City building inspector issued a correction notice, however, requiring the exclusive use of the 135 degree hooks. Levels one through three had defective tie hooks and required repair. JSM refused to pay Regional's invoices and withheld $545,000. JSM had to make repairs that required opening up numerous locations in the concrete walls, welding reinforcements to the steel placed by Regional, and otherwise strengthening the inadequate installation. Regional sued JSM for the withheld payment. JSM cross-claimed, asserting breach of contract and breach of express and implied warranties. 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

    Construction Warranties and the Statute of Repose – Southern States Chemical, Inc v. Tampa Tank & Welding Inc.

    January 20, 2020 —
    In a recent holding by the Georgia Court of Appeals, the court held that Georgia’s eight-year statute of repose applied to bar the project owner’s warranty claims. The renovation work by the contractor on the owner’s chemical tank constituted an improvement of real property, and thus, the statute of repose bared any claims eight years after substantial completion thereof. In addition, the court rejected the project owner’s claim that it qualified as a third-party beneficiary of an extended warranty contained in a report given by a subcontractor to the contractor. Factual Background In 2000, Southern States Phosphate and Fertilizer Company (“Southern States”) hired Tampa Tank & Welding, Inc (“Tampa Tank”) to renovate a tank to hold sulfuric acid. The parties’ written contract contained an express one-year warranty for material and workmanship from the date of completion. Two years later, in January 2002, the tank renovation was completed. Tampa Tank contracted with Corrosion Control Inc. (“CCI”) to design, assist with, and test the cathodic corrosion system. CCI provided only consultation and did not provide any onsite installation. Upon completion of installation, CCI supplied a report to Tampa Tank that the system was properly installed and fully functioning. Additionally, a post–installation report from CCI to Tampa Tank calculated an estimated life expectancy of forty-three to forty-five years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Assessing Defective Design Liability on Federal Design-Build Projects

    March 22, 2021 —
    A common misconception by many government officials is that a design-builder is always responsible for every design error or omission on a design-build project. This article examines the actual liability standard applied by the courts and boards of contract appeals when a design defect arises on a federal design-build project. Background: Design-Build Contracts and the Spearin Doctrine Design-build contracts combine the design and construction elements of a construction project into one contract. Design-build contracts often include two types of specifications: design and performance. Design specifications may set forth various parameters, such as precise measurements, tolerances, and materials. In doing so, the specifications create a fixed “roadmap” governing a contractor’s performance of the project. Performance specifications, on the other hand, set forth “operational characteristics” to achieve a particular objective or standard, but generally leave the details to the contractor. Reprinted courtesy of Dirk Haire, Fox Rothschild LLP, Adam Hamilton, Fox Rothschild LLP and Dana Molinari, Fox Rothschild LLP Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@foxrothschild.com Mr. Hamilton may be contacted at ahamilton@foxrothschild.com Ms. Molinari may be contacted at dmolinari@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of