BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield 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


    Update Your California Release Provisions to Include Amended Section 1542 Language

    More Details Emerge in Fatal Charlotte, NC, Scaffold Collapse

    Application of Set-Off When Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    Evaluating Construction Trends From 2023 and Forecasting For 2024

    Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims Four Years Later: What Have We Learned?

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/16/22) – Backlog Shifts, Green Battery Storage, and Russia-Ukraine Updates

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders

    Wildfire Is Efficient Proximate Cause of Moisture Reaching Expansive Soils Under Residence

    Gordie Howe Bridge Project Team Looks for a Third Period Comeback

    Construction Law Alert: Concrete Supplier Botches Concrete Mix, Gets Thrashed By Court of Appeal for Trying to Blame Third Party

    Why Federal and State Agencies are Considering Converting from a “Gallons Consumed” to a “Road Usage” Tax – And What are the Risks to the Consumer?

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Colorado Homes Approved Despite being Too Close Together

    Steel Makeover Under Way for Brooklyn's Squibb Footbridge

    Round and Round: Inside the Las Vegas Sphere

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    The COVID-19 Impact: Navigating the Legal Landscape’s New Normal

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

    Mandatory Arbitration Isn’t All Bad, if. . .

    Disruption: When Did It Start and Where Will It End?

    Newmeyer & Dillion Welcomes Three Associates to Newport Beach Office

    Mexico City Metro Collapse Kills 24 After Neighbors’ Warnings

    Builders Can’t Rely on SB800

    Damage Control: Major Rebuilds After Major Weather Events

    More on Duty to Defend a Subcontractor

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/06/22

    Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Property Insurance Exclusion: Leakage of Water Over 14 Days or More

    Architects Should Not Make Initial Decisions on Construction Disputes

    Antitrust Walker Process Claims Not Covered Under Personal Injury Coverage for Malicious Prosecution

    California Supreme Court Confirms the Right to Repair Act as the Exclusive Remedy for Seeking Relief for Defects in New Residential Construction

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Fastball Right to the Bean!”

    White House Proposal Returns to 1978 NEPA Review Procedures

    Arizona Rooftop Safety: Is it Adequate or Substandard?

    Scary Movie: Theatre Developer Axed By Court of Appeal In Prevailing Wage Determination Challenge

    Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (12/07/22) – Home Sales, EV Charging Infrastructure, and Office Occupancy

    Texas Considers a Quartet of Construction Bills

    Public Works Bid Protests – Who Is Responsible? Who Is Responsive?

    Why You Should Consider “In House Counsel”

    The BUILDCHAIN Project Enhances Data Exchange and Transparency in the EU Construction Industry

    “Source of Duty,” Tort, and Contract, Oh My!

    Wisconsin Court Enforces Breach of Contract Exclusion in E&O Policy

    New Change Order Bill Becomes Law: RCW 39.04.360

    Putting for a Cure: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    Balfour in Talks With Carillion About $5 Billion Merger

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2022 “Atlanta 500” List
    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

    Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

    November 15, 2021 —
    On Oct. 28, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court in Zurich American Insurance Company v.. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 66, held that an insured can rely on extrinsic facts to show that an insurer has a duty to defend the insured, as long as the facts were available to the insurer at the time the insured tendered the claim. The court also held that an insured has the burden of proving that an exception to an exclusion in an insurance policy applies to create a duty to defend. In Zurich, Ironshore refused to defend to its insured against multiple property damage claims arising out of construction defects, claiming that its policies’ continuing and progressive damage exclusions barred coverage. The underlying lawsuits made no specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred. Ironshore claimed that the property damage had occurred due to faulty work that predated the commencement of its policies. Two different federal trial courts came to conflicting conclusions in the underlying cases. One held that Ironshore had a duty to defend because Ironshore failed to show that an exception to the exclusion did not apply. The second granted summary judgment in favor of Ironshore holding that the insured failed to meet its burden of proving that an exception to the exclusion applied. Reprinted courtesy of Sarah J. Odia, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Ms. Odia may be contacted at sjo@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

    October 24, 2023 —
    Could the latest opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals be the distant ringing of a death knell for runaway construction defects verdicts? On the heels of the Damico ruling earlier this year, the courts have issued several opinions distinguishing various arbitration agreements from the one analyzed in Damico and have sent subsequent cases to arbitration. This summer, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals compelled arbitration in Cleo Sanders v. Savannah Highway Automotive Company, et al. Appellate Case No. 2021-000137 / Opinion No. 28168 (petition for rehearing pending) and Joseph Abruzzo v. Bravo Media Productions, et al. Appellate Case No. 2020-001095 / Opinion 6004. Now, in the matter of Jonathan Mart, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Respondent, v. Great Southern Homes, Inc., Appellant, Appellate Case No. 2018-001598, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order denying a homebuilder’s motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration in this action, which was brought by the homeowner, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated homeowners. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Laura Paris Paton, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Ms. Paton may be contacted at lpaton@grsm.com

    Texas Supreme Court Holds that Invoking Appraisal Provision and Paying Appraisal Amount Does Not Insulate an Insurer from Damages Under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act

    September 16, 2019 —
    In two cases decided June 28, 2019, the Texas Supreme Court held that an insurer’s invocation of a contractual appraisal provision after denying a claim does not as a matter of law insulate it from liability under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (“TPPCA”). But, on the other hand, the court also held that the insurer’s payment of the appraisal award does not as a matter of law establish its liability under the policy for purposes of TPPCA damages. In Barbara Techs. Corp. v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 17-0640, 2019 WL 2666484, at *1 (Tex. June 28, 2019), State Farm Lloyds issued property insurance to Barbara Technologies Corporation for a commercial property. A wind and hail storm damaged the property, and Barbara Tech filed a claim under the policy. State Farm denied the claim, asserting that damages were less than the $5,000 deductible. Barbara Tech filed suit against State Farm, including for violation of the TPPCA. Six months later, State Farm invoked the appraisal provision of the policy. More than a year after the suit was filed, appraisers agreed to a value of $195,345.63. State Farm then paid that amount, minus depreciation and the deductible. Barbara Tech amended its petition to include only TPPCA claims. Reprinted courtesy of John C. Eichman, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Grayson L. Linyard, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Eichman may be contacted at jeichman@HuntonAK.com Mr. Linyard may be contacted at glinyard@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    WSHB Expands to Philadelphia

    July 28, 2016 —
    Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) announced “the opening of its newest regional office at One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street, 36th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103,” according to a press release. Elizabeth Chalik will be the managing partner at the new location. Chalik is “a highly regarded litigator with close to 15 years of trial experience” and her practice has focused on products liability, casualty, toxic tort and transportation litigation. Furthermore, Chalik is admitted to practice law in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. “It is fitting that as we celebrate WSHB’s 19th year, we are opening our 19th office,” said Daniel Berman, Firm Chairman and Co-founder. “With this expansion, we continue our pattern of strategic long term growth. That, coupled with Liz’s proven track record and many years in Philadelphia, further expands our ability to better serve our clients in the Northeast.” Chalik has been recognized on the Super Lawyers List of Rising Stars for three years running. “I am thrilled to be joining Wood Smith Henning & Berman. WSHB’s long-standing reputation and dedication to their clients drew me to them and I knew that this would be the right place for me,” said Chalik. “I could not be more excited about the opportunity to manage WSHB’s new Philadelphia office!” WSHB also has offices located in Connecticut, Denver, Fresno, Glendale, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, New Jersey, New York, Northern California, Orange County, Phoenix, Portland, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, San Diego, Seattle and Tampa. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Chambers USA 2019 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    June 03, 2019 —
    Chambers USA once again recognized White and Williams as a leading law firm in Pennsylvania for achievements and client service in the area of insurance law. In addition, three lawyers received individual honors - one for her work in insurance, one for his work in commercial litigation and another for his work in banking and finance. White and Williams is acknowledged for its renowned practice offering expert representation to insurers and reinsurers across an impressive range of areas including coverage, bad faith litigation and excess liability. The firm is recognized for its notable strength in transactional and regulatory matters complemented by its adroit handling of complex alternative dispute resolutions. Chambers also acknowledged the firm's broad trial capabilities, including handling data privacy, professional liability and toxic tort coverage claims, and experience in substantial claims arising from bodily injury and wrongful death suits. White and Williams' individual lawyer honorees include Managing Partner Patti Santelle, who is named an Eminent Practitioner in the area of insurance. Patti's considerable experience advising insurers on a broad range of coverage matters, including asbestos, environmental and toxic tort cases, coupled with her proficiency in coverage actions at the state and federal level earn her a well-regarded reputation as an "excellent lawyer." Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys David Marion, Patricia Santelle and Maulin Vidwans Mr. Marion may be contacted at mariond@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Vidwans may be contacted at vidwansm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    COVID-19 Likely No Longer Covered Under Force Majeure

    February 01, 2023 —
    A recent decision by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has shaken up construction contracts. While companies could claim “force majeure” to exempt themselves from contractual obligations during much of the pandemic, this decision challenges ongoing validity of those claims. The decision was based on the Army Corps of Engineers deeming a bid from Boulder, Colorado–based American Mine Services (AMS) as nonresponsive because it included a COVID-19 force majeure clause. In reviewing the Corps’ decision, GAO—referencing the Federal Acquisition Regulation—found that “epidemics” and “quarantine restrictions” were already included in the contract between the Corps and AMS. Although AMS claimed that “COVID-19 is considered a force majeure event along with any other similar disease, epidemic or pandemic event,” the GAO concluded that this interpretation limited the rights of the government too much. Reprinted courtesy of Rachel E. Pelovitz, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Ms. Pelovitz may be contacted at pelovitz@abc.org

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    December 20, 2012 —
    On a certified question from the Federal District Court, the Supreme Court of Kentucky decided that an anti-assignment provision in a policy is unenforceable.Wehr Constructors v. Paducah Div. Assur. Co. of Am., 2012 Ky. LEXIS 183 (Ky. Oct. 25, 2012). Before building an addition to its hospital, Murray Calloway County Hospital purchased a builder's risk policy from Assurance Company of America.The policy provided, "Your rights and duties under this policy may not be transferred without Assurance's written consent . . . ." The Hospital contracted with Wehr Constructors to install concrete subsurfaces and vinyl floors in order to expand the hospital. After installation, a portion of the floors and subsurface work was damaged. The Hospital submitted a claim to Assurance for $75,000, but the claim was denied. Wehr sued the Hospital to recover money for its work on the construction project. In settling the case, the Hospital assigned to Wehr any claim or rights the Hospital had against Assurance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.
    Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Compliance with Building Code Included in Property Damage

    February 07, 2018 —

    A Circuit Court in Florida issued a final judgment determining that the insured's obligation to comply with building code provisions was included in the property damage experienced. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark, Am. Ins. Co., No. 312009CA012244 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Dec. 28, 2017). The decision is here.

    At trial, the plaintiff's architect testified that the total pricing for the code upgrades was $6.2 million. On appeal, the appellate court ruled that plaintiff's Exhibit 98, an Upgrade Insurance Claim, was improperly admitted as a business record. The appellate court stated that the jury may have considered Exhibit 98 in determining the amount of code upgrade damages. Therefore, the verdict was reversed and remanded for a trial on the code upgrade damages only.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawarii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com