BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction 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 NEPA Rule Restores Added Infrastructure Project Scrutiny

    Following My Own Advice

    New Joint Venture to Develop a New Community in Orange County, California

    Apartments pushed up US homebuilding in September

    California Courts Call a “Time Out” During COVID-19 –New Emergency Court Rules on Civil Litigation

    Shoring of Problem Girders at Salesforce Transit Center Taking Longer than Expected

    L.A.’s Modest Solution to the ‘Missing Middle’ Housing Problem

    Excess Insurer On The Hook For Cleanup Costs At Seven Industrial Sites

    Weyerhaeuser Leaving Home Building Business

    Erector Tops Out 850-Foot-Tall Rainier Square Tower in Only 10 Months

    The Right to Repair Act Means What it Says and Says What it Means

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

    Catching Killer Clauses in Contract Negotiations

    Changes to the Federal Rules – 2024

    Connecticut Grapples With Failing Concrete Foundations

    Application Of Two Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-For-Delay And Liquidated Damages

    Gordon & Rees Ranked #4 of Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation by Construction Executive Magazine

    Illinois Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Punitive Damages In Most Wrongful Death Actions

    There’s the 5 Second Rule, But Have You Heard of the 5 Year Rule?

    To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? That is the Question

    Presidential Memorandum Promotes Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West

    What You Need to Know About “Ipso Facto” Clauses and Their Impact on Termination of a Contractor or Subcontractor in a Bankruptcy

    New Orleans Reviews System After Storm Swamps Pumps

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    SB800 CONFIRMED AS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS

    Review of Recent Contractors State License Board Changes

    Policy Reformed to Add New Building Owner as Additional Insured

    Angela Cooner Appointed Vice-Chair of Arizona’s Inaugural Board of Legal Specialization Construction Defect Law Advisory Commission

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

    Filing Motion to Increase Lien Transfer Bond (Before Trial Court Loses Jurisdiction Over Final Judgment)

    The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

    South Caroline Holds Actual Cash Value Can Include Depreciation of Labor Costs

    Update: New VOSH Maximum Penalties as of July 1

    Sold Signs Fill Builder Lots as U.S. Confidence Rises: Economy

    Environmental and Regulatory Law Update: New Federal and State Rulings

    2023 Executive Insights From Leaders in Construction Law

    Contractors: Beware the Subordination Clause

    Construction Reaches Half-Way Point on San Diego's $2.1 Billion Mid-Coast Trolley

    Liquidated Damages Clause Not Enforced

    Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (3/20/24) – Construction Backlog Falls, National Association of Realtors Settle Litigation, and Commercial Real Estate Market’s Effect on City Cuts

    Subcontractors Essential to Home Building Industry

    Feds OK $9B Houston Highway Project After Two-Year Pause

    Court Addresses Damages Under Homeowners Insurance Policy

    Hawaii Construction Defect Law Increased Confusion

    Singapore Unveils Changes to Make Public Housing More Affordable

    Make Your Business Great Again: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    5 Questions about New York's Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation
    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

    The Benefits of Trash Talking: A Cautionary Tale of Demolition Gone Wrong

    September 02, 2024 —
    That sinking feeling has crossed everyone’s mind at some point: "Did I accidentally throw out...?” It can happen to anyone, from valuable jewelry to uncashed checks or even (in the case of one contractor) to fire-pump control cabinets. Demolishing the wrong equipment is a concern construction and demolition contractors should review before beginning any project. Recently, one general contractor and its demolition subcontractor would have benefitted from a more detailed “trash” talking session, which could have helped them avoid a dumpster-fire of a legal dispute. In this case, the general contractor was contracted to renovate a hangar for a military base. The company subcontracted the demolition work to a local, family-owned contractor to demolish aspects of the hangar’s fire-suppression room. The two companies met many times, from planning to daily field walk-downs. They discussed that any equipment that was tagged with bright orange tags would remain in the fire-suppression room. The contractor also reviewed the demolition plans with the demolition company, detailing what should and should not be removed. Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Levy, Anne O'Meara & Kimberly Gutierrez, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hawaii Federal District Court Again Rejects Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    January 13, 2017 —
    The federal district court for the District of Hawaii continued its longstanding pattern of finding no coverage for claims based upon construction defects. Am. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Haw. Nut & Bolt, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174243 (D. Haw. Dec. 16, 2016). Safeway filed a complaint against Hawaii Nut & Bolt (HNB). The complaint involved issues pertaining to the construction of the roof deck at a Safeway store. HNB was a subcontractor hired to supply a coating system on the roof of the store to make it waterproof. The product was manufactured by VersaFlex. After the store opened, there were water leaks from the roof. This disrupted business operations and caused damage to Safeway's business and reputation. HNB tendered the claims to its CGL carrier, Fireman's Fund Insurance Corporation (FFIC). FFIC defended the underlying lawsuit for six years under a reservation of rights. 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

    When Cyber Crooks Steal Payments, Think Insurance Makes Up The Loss? Think Again.

    November 18, 2024 —
    In Summer 2023, the payment system for a small office and warehouse project that Beck Properties was developing for itself in South St. Paul, Minn., seemed to be running smoothly. Emails were criss-crossing back and forth and paper checks were landing in mailboxes. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Two More Lawsuits Filed Over COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    April 13, 2020 —
    Two more lawsuits were filed yesterday concerning business interruption losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs, the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations, filed their lawsuits, copies of which can be found here and here, in Oklahoma state court against a litany of property insurers, led by AIG. The lawsuits seek an order that any financial losses suffered by the nations’ casinos, restaurants and other businesses as a result of the coronavirus pandemic are covered by the nations’ insurance policies. According to the complaints:
    On or about March of 2020, the United States of America became infected by COVID 19 resulting in a pandemic. As a result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property sustained direct physical loss or damage and will continue to sustain direct physical loss or damage covered by the policies, including but not limited to business interruption, extra expense, interruption by civil authority, limitations on ingress and egress, and expenses to reduce loss. As a direct result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property has been damaged, as described above, and cannot be used for its intended purpose.
    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

    What is the Implied Warranty of Habitability?

    October 02, 2018 —
    The implied warranty of habitability plays an important role in our understanding of the relationship between tenant and landlord; it helps to define the parameters and requirements of contracts between tenant and the owner. In doing so, the implied warranty of habitability is meant to ensure that a home or rental unit is in a livable condition. In this article, we’ll take a look at what the warranty of habitability is, how it developed, and what differentiates the warranty of habitability from the previous landlord-tenant law. Background of the Implied Warranty of Habitability When someone hears about the warranty of habitability, their first question is usually “what is the implied warranty of habitability?” This is understandable, given that the implied warranty of habitability isn’t exactly well known. Most renters have probably never heard of the implied warranty of habitability, despite the fact that it provides important safeguards for tenant’s rights. In order to gain a better understanding of what the implied warranty of habitability is, it is helpful to understand what state of affairs existed prior to the adoption of an implied warranty of habitability. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara

    Free Texas MCLE Seminar at BHA Houston June 13th

    May 29, 2014 —
    There are just two weeks remaining to sign up for Bert L. Howe & Associate’s next Texas MCLE seminar, THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROCESS & CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION. This activity will be presented on Friday, June 13th at noon, at BHA’s Houston offices, located at: 800 Town & Country Blvd. Suite 300 Houston, TX 77024 There is no cost for attendance at this seminar and lunch will be provided. This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.0 credit hours, of which 0.0 credit hours will apply to legal ethics/professional responsibility credit. The seminar will be presented by Don MacGregor, general contractor and project manager. Water intrusion through doors, windows and roofing systems, as well as soil and foundation-related movement, and the resultant damage associated therewith, are the triggering effects for the vast majority of homeowner complaints today and serve as the basis for most residential construction defect litigation. The graphic and animation-supported workshop/lecture activity will focus on the residential construction process from site preparation through occupancy, an examination of associated damages most often encountered when investigating construction defect claims, and the inter-relationships between the developer, general contractor, sub trades and design professionals. Typical plaintiff homeowner/HOA expert allegations will be examined in connection with those building components most frequently associated with construction defect and claims litigation. The workshop will examine: *Typical construction materials, and terminology associated with residential construction *The installation process and sequencing of major construction elements, including interrelationship with other building assemblies *The parties (subcontractors) typically associated with major construction assemblies and components *An analysis of exposure/allocation to responsible parties. Attendance at THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROCESS & CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION seminar will provide the attendee with: *A greater understanding of the terms and conditions encountered when dealing with common construction defect issues *A greater understanding of contractual scopes of work encountered when reviewing construction contract documents *The ability to identify, both quickly and accurately, potentially responsible parties *An understanding of damages most often associated with construction defects, as well as a greater ability to identify conditions triggering coverage Course #: 901290467 / Sponsor #: 14152. To register for the event, please email Don MacGregor at dmac@berthowe.com. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Don at (800) 482-1822 (office) or (714) 713-4956 (cell). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Determining the Cause of the Loss from a Named Windstorm when there is Water Damage - New Jersey

    March 23, 2020 —
    Water damage, while one of the leading causes of loss under a property policy, often results in some of the most complex claims due to the intersection of exclusions, sublimits, and complex wording within the policy. One particularly difficult issue is whether water damage caused by a storm surge is covered by the flood sublimit, or under the general policy or water limit. In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s (“NJTC v. Lloyd’s”), the New Jersey Appeals Court found that the “flood” sublimit of the policy should not apply as the cause of the loss was a “named windstorm” and not a “flood.” In NJTC v Lloyd's the court was asked to determine whether a flood sublimit applied to losses sustained during Superstorm Sandy. The court found that although there was “flooding,” the water damage was more closely related to the “named windstorm”, and therefore, the $400 million policy limits should apply. The court focused its analysis on the definitions for “flood” and “named windstorm” and by applying the efficient proximate cause doctrine to determine which would apply. When reviewing the definitions within the property policies, the court determined that although the loss would qualify under the definition of “flood,” the policy also contained a definition for “named windstorm” which “more specifically encompasses the wind driven water or storm surge associated with a ‘named windstorm’”1. In addition, the policy did not specifically state that “storm surge” associated with a “named windstorm” should be considered a “flood” event and fall under the “flood” sublimit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Perry may be contacted at amp@sdvlaw.com

    Application of Frye Test to Determine Admissibility of Expert

    April 03, 2019 —
    Florida went back to the Frye test/standard, instead of the Daubert test utilized in federal court, to determine the admissibility of expert testimony. The Frye test is more favorable to plaintiffs because it applies when an expert renders an opinion based on new or novel scientific principles. See D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Heron’s Landing Condominium Ass’n of Jacksonville, Inc., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D109b (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“The supreme court has described the Frye test as one in which the results of mechanical or scientific testing are not admissible unless the testing has developed or improved to the point where the experts in the field widely share the view that the results are scientifically reliable as accurate. Stated differently, under Frye, the proponent of the evidence has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence with the general acceptance of the underlying scientific principles and methodology. However, as stated, the Frye standard only applies when an expert attempts to render an opinion that is based upon new or novel scientific principles.”). In D.R. Horton, Inc., a condominium association sued the developer and general contractor (same entity) for construction defects that included claims in negligence, violation of building code, and breach of statutory warranties. The developer/general contractor moved in limine / to strike the association’s experts under, at the time, a Daubert analysis, but which became a Frye analysis during the pendency of the appeal. The expert opined as to construction defects and damage and the appropriate repairs – really, no different than any construction defect dispute, from what it appeared. The trial court denied the motion and during trial the experts testified and a sizable damages judgment was entered against the developer/contractor prompting the appeal. One issue on appeal was the admissibility of the expert’s opinion. The appellate court noted that a Frye analysis is not necessary because the experts used a scientifically reliable and peer-reviewed methodology. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com