BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code 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


    Hunton Insurance Coverage Group Ranked in National Tier 1 by US News & World Report

    Manhattan’s Property Boom Pushes Landlords to Sell Early

    Occurrence Found, Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Bar Coverage for Construction Defects

    Coping with Labor & Install Issues in Green Building

    Release Of “Unknown” Claim Does Not Bar Release Of “Unaccrued” Claim: Fair Or Unfair?

    New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice

    Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

    David M. McLain named Law Week Colorado’s 2015 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants

    Zero-Energy Commercial Buildings Increase as Contractors Focus on Sustainability

    Lewis Brisbois Ranks 11th in Law360’s Glass Ceiling Report on Gender Parity in Law Firms

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    Eminent Domain Bomb Threats Made on $775M Alabama Highway Project

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

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

    Will the Hidden Cracks in the Bay Bridge Cause Problems During an Earthquake?

    Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim

    Congratulations to Haight’s 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    The Goldilocks Rule: Panel Rejects Proposed Insurer-Specific MDL Proceedings for Four Large Insurers, but Establishes MDL Proceeding for the Smallest

    Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims

    Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

    Dot I’s and Cross T’s When It Comes to Construction Licensure Requirements

    A Place to Study Eternity: Building the Giant Magellan Telescope

    Treasure Island Sues Beach Trail Designer over Concrete Defects

    Change #7- Contractor’s Means & Methods (law note)

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

    Get to Know BJ Siegel: Former Apple Executive and Co-Founder of Juno

    "Ongoing Storm" Rules for the Northeast (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York & Rhode Island)

    Rhode Island Sues 13 Industry Firms Over Flawed Interstate Bridge

    Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

    Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims

    Construction is the Fastest Growing Industry in California

    Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

    Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Recovery Practice, Partners Larry Bracken and Mike Levine Receive Band 1 Honors from Chambers USA in Georgia

    Texas Supreme Court Rules That Subsequent Purchaser of Home Is Bound by Original Homeowner’s Arbitration Agreement With Builder

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA

    4 Lessons Contractors Can Learn From The COVID-19 Crisis

    So a Lawsuit Is on the Horizon…

    Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

    Product Manufacturers Beware: You May Be Subject to Jurisdiction in Massachusetts

    Contract Terms Can Impact the Accrual Date For Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Coyness is Nice. Just Not When Seeking a Default Judgment

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

    Helsinki Stream City: A Re-imagining Outside the System

    Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay

    Congratulations to Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, John Toohey, and Tyler Offenhauser for Being Recognized as 2022 Super Lawyers!

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    What Are The Most Commonly Claimed Issues In Construction Defect Litigation?

    Revolutionizing Buildings with Hybrid Energy Systems and Demand Response

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects
    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

    No Coverage for Home Damaged by Falling Boulders

    March 08, 2021 —
    The policy's earth movement exclusion barred coverage for the home damaged by large boulders rolling down from the hillside above. Sullivan v. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am., 2021 U.S. App. LEZXIS 628 (10th Cir Jan. 11, 2021). Plaintiffs' home sustained extensive damage when two or three large builders rolled down a steep hillside and struck the home. The insurer, Nationwide, hired an engineering firm that determined the boulders were not influenced by meteorological conditions such as torrential rain or high winds. The report noted that rockfall hazards existed primarily due to an undercut sandstone outcrop, and evidenced by numerous rocks from rockfall events that scattered Plaintiffs' property. Based on the report, Nationwide denied coverage under the earth movement exclusion. The exclusion provided Nationwide did "not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by . . . Earth Movement" and regardless of "whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area." The policy further defined "earth movement" to include "landslide . . . or any other earth movement including earth sinking, risking or shifting." 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

    Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

    May 10, 2012 —

    The case Illinois National Insurance Co. v Nordic PCL, et al. “involves a dispute about whether insurance benefits are available to a general contractor who built structures that allegedly have construction defects. Plaintiffs Illinois National Insurance Company (‘Illinois National’) and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (‘National Union’) (collectively, the ‘Insurers’), commenced this action for declaratory relief against Defendant Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction, Ltd. ("Nordic"), on August 23, 2011.”

    The court was asked to rule on a long list of motions: “Counterclaim Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Their (1) Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim and (2) Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim, ECF No. 16 (‘Request for Judicial Notice’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 14 (‘Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 15 (‘Motion to Strike’); Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 33 (‘Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay’); Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction Ltd.’s Substantive Joinder to Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 36 (‘Nordic’s Joinder’); and Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Counts V and VI of Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc.’s Third-Party Complaint, ECF No. 29 (‘Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings’).”

    In result, the court reached the following decisions: “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice to the extent it covers matters relevant to these motions; GRANTS IN PART the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, but gives Nordic leave to amend the Counterclaim in certain respects; DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike; DENIES Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder; and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”

    The court provides a bit of background on the case: “This action arises out of alleged construction defects involving two projects on which Nordic acted as the general contractor. Nordic is a defendant in a pending state court action with respect to one of the projects and says it spent more than $400,000 on repairs with respect to the other project. Nordic tendered the defense of the pending state court action to the Insurers and sought reimbursement of the cost of repairs already performed. The Insurers responded by filing this action to determine their rights under the insurance policies issued to Nordic.”

    Furthermore, the court presented a brief procedural history: “The Insurers commenced this declaratory action in this court on August 23, 2011. The Complaint asserts two claims, one seeking a declaration that the Insurers have no duty to provide a defense or indemnification regarding the Safeway Action, the other seeking such a declaration regarding the Moanalua Claims. Along with its Answer, Nordic filed a Counterclaim against the Insurers. The Counterclaim asserts breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentations and omissions of material fact, and bad faith, and seeks declaratory relief against the Insurers.”

    The procedural history continues: “Nordic also filed a Third-Party Complaint against Marsh, the broker that had procured the Policies from the Insurers for Nordic. Nordic alleges that it reasonably believed that the Policies would provide completed operations insurance coverage for the types of construction defects alleged in the Safeway Action and Moanalua Claims. The Third-Party Complaint asserts breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duties, implied indemnity, and contribution and equitable subrogation.”

    In conclusion, “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice. With regard to the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, the court GRANTS the motion as to Count I (breach of contract), Count II (duty of good faith and fair dealing), Count III (fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation), the portion of Count IV (bad faith) premised on fraud, and Count IV (declaratory relief). The court DENIES the motion as to Count IV (bad faith) that is not premised on fraud. Except with respect to the "occurrence" issue, which the court disposes of here on the merits, and Count V, which concerns only a form of relief, Nordic is given leave to amend its Counterclaim within three weeks of the date of this order. The court DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike, DENIES Marsh’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder, and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to Counts V and VI of the Third-Party Complaint.”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    A Recap of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Summer Slate

    September 16, 2019 —
    As usual, the last month of the Supreme Court’s term generated significant rulings on all manner of cases, possibly presaging the new directions the Court will be taking in administrative and regulatory law. Here’s a brief roundup: An Offshore Dispute, Resolve – Parker Drilling Management v. Newton On June 10, 2019, the Court held, in a unanimous ruling, that, under federal law, California wage and hour laws do not apply to offshore operations conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Newton, the plaintiff, worked on drilling platforms off the coast of California, and alleged that he was not paid for his “standby time” which is contrary to California law if not federal law. He filed a class action in state court, which was removed to federal court, where it was dismissed on the basis of a 1969 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that state law applies on the OCS only to the extent that it is necessary to use state law to fill a significant gap or void in federal law, and this is not the case here. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, that court disagreed with the Fifth Circuit, and ruled that state law is applicable on the OCS whenever it applies to the matter at hand. The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Thomas, conceded that “this is a close question of statutory interpretation,” but in the end the Court agreed with the argument that if there was not a gap to fill, that ended the dispute over which law applies on the Outer continental Shelf. This ruling, recognizing the preeminent role that federal law plays on the OCS, may affect the resolution of other offshore disputes affecting other federal statutes. Preemption Prevention – Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren. et al. On June 17, 2019 the Court decided important cases involving federal preemption and First Amendment issues. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Atomic Energy Act does not preempt a Virginia law that “flatly prohibits uranium mining in Virginia”—or more precisely—mining on non-federal land in Virginia. Virginia Uranium planned to mine raw uranium from a site near Coles, Virginia, but acknowledging that Virginia law forbade such an operation, challenged the state law on federal preemption grounds, arguing that the Atomic Energy Act, as implemented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, preempts the ability of the state to regulate this activity. However, the majority, in an opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, notes that the “best reading of the AEA does not require us to hold the state law before us preempted,” and that the1983 precedent that Virginia Uranium cites, Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, can easily be distinguished. Justice Gorsuch rejected arguments that the intent of the Virginia legislators in passing the state law should be consulted, that the Court’s ruling should normally be governed by the exact text of the statute at hand. However, both the concurring and dissenting opinions suggest that the what the legislators intended to do is important in a preemption context. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    August 20, 2018 —
    Danny the Developer wishes to build Greenacre, a large residential and retail condominium complex in downtown Boston. However, Danny’s lender – the Bank of Barbara – will not lend Danny the money to develop the complex unless Danny’s architect signs a lender certificate. Danny presents the lender certificate to Allie the Architect, the certificate is relatively short and simple, it states:
    “Allie the Architect prepared plans and specifications relating to Greenacre. Allie the Architect certifies that the plans are in accordance with all applicable zoning, building, housing and other laws, ordinances, regulations including but not limited to the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, and the Americans with Disability Act. The Plans do not encroach over, across or upon any such easements, rights-of-way, or subsurface rights and the like. Allie further certifies that the load bearing capacity of the soil is adequate to support the plans. The Bank of Barbara shall rely upon Allie the Architects certification in loaning money to Danny the Developer for Greenacre.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jacob Goodelman, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Goodelman may be contacted at jgoodelman@grsm.com

    Florida Court of Appeals Holds Underlying Tort Case Must Resolve Before Third-Party Spoliation Action Can Be Litigated

    December 04, 2018 —
    In Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 43 Fla. L. Weekly 2225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., Sept. 26, 2018), the Third District Court of Appeals of Florida addressed whether a third-party spoliation claim should be litigated and tried at the same time as the plaintiff’s underlying tort case. The court held that since the third-party spoliation claim did not accrue until the underlying claim was resolved, the spoliation cause of action could not proceed until the plaintiff resolved his underlying claim. The underlying matter in Amerisure involved a personal injury claim by plaintiff Lazaro Rodriguez. While working as an employee for BV Oil, Inc. (BV), Mr. Rodriguez was knocked from the top of a gasoline tanker he was fueling at a gasoline storage warehouse owned by Cosme Investment (Cosme). Mr. Rodriguez filed a personal injury lawsuit against Cosme. He also collected worker’s compensation benefits from Amerisure Insurance Company (Amerisure), BV’s worker’s compensation carrier, while his lawsuit was pending. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White & Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    #11 CDJ Topic: Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al.

    December 30, 2015 —
    Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta of Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli, LLP obtained a defense verdict in a breach of fiduciary duty action involving a high-rise condominium in downtown San Diego, California. The Association asked for excess of over $3 million, however, the jury returned with a 10-2 defense verdict in favor of K. Hovnanian. “While it is now becoming ever more common for attorneys representing homeowners associations to allege a breach of fiduciary duty by the developer, there has been little actual litigation of the issues surrounding those claims which test the viability of the allegations or the defenses to them,” defense attorney Anthony Gaeta stated. “A breach of a fiduciary duty by a developer, which is demonstrated to damage the viability of an HOA either to perform regularly scheduled maintenance, or replace building components from its reserves, has the potential in economic terms to surpass the damages from purported construction defects.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Case Remanded for Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    November 06, 2013 —
    The Florida Court of Appeals remanded the case after the insured was awarded an $8 million dollar judgment against its property insurer for hurricane and other damage to a home. Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Sebo, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14799 (Fla. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2013). Sebo purchased his home in April 2005, when it was four years old. It was insured under a manuscript policy issued by AHAC for $8 million. The all-risk policy covered rain, but excluded damage caused by faulty, inadequate or defective planning. After Sebo bought the home, water leaks were noticed. Sebo believed that the house suffered from major design and construction defects. In October 2005, Hurricane Wilma struck and further damaged the home. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    ABC Announces Disaster Relief Efforts and Resources Following Hurricane Milton

    October 15, 2024 —
    HURRICANE RELIEF Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee were hit with Hurricane Helene, and now Florida is facing additional damage from Hurricane Milton, which is expected to make landfall on Wednesday, Oct. 9. Damages from Helene have already been catastrophic, and our hearts and prayers go out to all currently affected and those who may be in the path of Milton. Florida Gov. DeSantis has declared a state of emergency for 51 counties ahead of this impending storm. Donate to the ABC Cares Foundation via the online portal. The ABC Florida East Coast chapter and the ABC Cares Foundation Inc. are committed to assisting communities impacted by Hurricanes Helene and Milton. 100% of donations made to the ABC Cares Foundation—an IRS 501(c)(3)—for this purpose will be restricted, directly supporting regional needs, and are 100% tax deductible. Donate to the American Red Cross through ABC’s donation portal. Your Red Cross disaster relief gift will help people whose lives have been upended by wildfires, storms, floods and countless other crises. This custom website tracks donations by the ABC community and can be dedicated to a friend or loved one. Donate Reprinted courtesy of ABC, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of