BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield 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


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

    Manhattan Vacancies Rise in Epicenter Shift: Real Estate

    Peru’s Former President and His Wife to Stay in Jail After Losing Appeal

    Trump’s Infrastructure Weak

    Sixth Circuit Affirms Liability Insurer's Broad Duty to Defend and Binds Insurer to Judgment Against Landlord

    Dynamics of Managing Professional Liability Claims for Design Builders

    BWB&O Partner Jack Briscoe and Associate Anoushe Marandjian Win Summary Judgment Motion on Behalf of Homeowner Client!

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

    Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld

    How Concrete Mistakes Added Cost to the Recent Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge Project

    Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    Another Colorado City Passes Construction Defects Ordinance

    Dallas Home Being Built of Shipping Containers

    The G2G Year in Review: 2019

    Reroof Blamed for $10 Million in Damage

    What is a Subordination Agreement?

    Design-Build Contracting: Is the Shine Off the Apple?

    When to Withhold Retention Payments on Private or Public Projects

    The 2017 ASCDC and CDCMA Construction Defect Seminar and Holiday Reception

    ASCE Report Calls for Sweeping Changes to Texas Grid Infrastructure

    House Bill Clarifies Start Point for Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Five Reasons to Hire Older Workers—and How to Keep Them

    No Concrete Answers on Whether Construction Defects Are Occurrences

    A Trivial Case

    Insurer Must Produce Documents After Failing To Show They Are Confidential

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/10/24) – Strong Construction Investment in Data Centers, Increase Use of Proptech in Hospitality and Effects of Remote-Work on Housing Market

    The Requirement to Post Collateral Under General Agreement of Indemnity Is Real

    California Court of Appeal Adopts Horizontal Exhaustion Rule

    Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound to Arbitration Award

    CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

    Will Colorado Pass a Construction Defect Reform Bill in 2016?

    Federal Government May Go to Different Green Building Standard

    First Look at Long List of AEC Firms Receiving PPP Loans

    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    Baby Boomer Housing Deficit Coming?

    Defense Owed to Insured Subcontractor, but not to Additional Insured

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 37 White And Williams Lawyers

    Quick Note: Don’t Forget To Serve The Contractor Final Payment Affidavit

    Insurer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Construction Defect Claim Rejected

    Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

    Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Matching of Materials Decided by Appraisers

    Illusory Insurance Coverage: Real or Unreal?

    On-Site Supersensing and the Future of Construction Automation – Discussion with Aviad Almagor

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/24/24) – Long-Term Housing Issues in Hawaii, Underperforming REITs, and Growth in a Subset of the Hotel Sector

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations

    Court Upholds Denial of Collapse Coverage Where Building Still Stands

    Blog Completes Sixteenth Year

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    COVID-19 Response: Key Legal Considerations for Event Cancellations
    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

    Your Work Exclusion Applies to Damage to Tradesman's Property, Not Damage to Other Property

    March 30, 2016 —
    The New Mexico Court of Appeals presented a cogent analysis of claims for construction defects and the application of the "your work" exclusion under a CGL policy in Pulte Homes of New Mexico, Inc. v. Indiana Lumbermens Ins. Co., 2015 N.M. App. LEXIS 134 (N. M. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015). Pulte built 107 homes. Pulte contracted with 'Western Building Supply (WBS) to provide windows and sliding glass doors for the homes. Pulte was named as an additional insured under WBS's policy with Lumbermens (ILM). In 2007, a large group of homeowners sued Pulte, alleging numerous construction defects in their homes. Among the defects were windows that leaked and sliding glass doors that stuck and did not close completely. Many of the homeowners arbitrated their claims against Pulte. In May 2009, Pulte tendered its first demand for a defense to ILM. The arbitration award against Pulte found that windows and doors did not operate properly and had been replaced by Pulte. 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

    Texas Mechanic’s Lien Law Update: New Law Brings a Little Relief for Subcontractors and a Lot of Relief for Design Professionals

    June 07, 2021 —
    After several recent failed attempts to amend Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code (the “Texas Mechanic’s Lien Statute”), it appears that long awaited relief may, at least in part, be on the horizon for subcontractors in Texas. Additionally, architects, engineers, and surveyors also appear to be significant benefactors of House Bill 2237 (“HB 2237”). Under existing law, many subcontractors often fail to perfect their mechanic’s liens under the Texas Mechanic’s Lien Statute because of complex notice requirements which must be sent for every month in which labor or material are furnished. And architects, engineers and surveyors currently have no lien rights unless they have a direct contractual relationship with the owner of the project. Effective January 1, 2022, HB 2237 amends the Texas Mechanic’s Lien Statute in several significant respects. Subcontractor Impacts HB 2237 impacts subcontractors in the following ways:
    1. Establishes uniformity in the notice requirements by imposing the same notice obligation on all subcontractors regardless of with whom they have contracted. Rather than sending one notice to the owner and one to the general contractor, the single notice now required must be sent to both simultaneously. Additionally, HB 2237 prescribes the form of the notice to be given under both Section 53.056 (notice of derivative claimant) and 53.057 (notice of contractual retainage).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tracey L. Williams, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Ms. Williams may be contacted at twilliams@pecklaw.com

    Significant Ruling in PFAS Litigation Could Impact Insurance Coverage

    October 10, 2022 —
    Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, have served as a key component in numerous industrial and consumer products for decades. These “forever chemicals,” which have been associated with environmental contamination and adverse health outcomes, have garnered steadily-growing attention from regulatory authorities, the plaintiffs’ bar, and, by extension, the insurance industry. The current “case to watch” regarding PFAS is the multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge Gergel presiding. The MDL is comprised of well over 2,000 cases brought by both individual plaintiffs and state and local governments arising out of the manufacturing and/or use of aqueous film forming foam, also known as AFFF. The use of AFFF, which was historically employed in firefighting operations, including those undertaken by the United States military, allegedly causes the release of two types of PFAS into the environment – PFOS and PFOA. On September 16, 2022, Judge Gergel denied a motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendant 3M Company and other AFFF defendant manufacturers on the government contractor immunity defense. Although not an insurance coverage decision, the ruling is significant in the context of PFAS litigation and could have insurance coverage implications. Reprinted courtesy of Sara C. Tilitz, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP Ms. Tilitz may be contacted at tilitzs@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Jersey Appellate Court Reinstates Asbestos Action

    March 05, 2015 —
    According to the New Jersey Law Journal, an asbestos case involving “a long-time ship worker who died of mesothelioma was reinstated by a New Jersey appellate court on March 3.” A lower court judge had “dismissed the claims against them based on his view that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was insufficient to show that the ships on which he worked contained asbestos and that he was exposed to it.” However, the appeals judges disagreed. “Although the summary judgment motion was decided on a very narrow ground, we conclude that the record as a whole establishes a triable issue as to whether plaintiff was exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products on defendant’s dredges,” judges Susan Maven and Henry Carroll stated, according to the New Jersey Law Journal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Social Distancing and the Impact on Service of Process Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

    April 13, 2020 —
    Service of process usually requires person-to-person contact and is an essential part of civil procedure. It notifies the defendant of the legal proceedings against him/her and establishes jurisdiction. “Process” refers to the documents that must be served on a defendant. If service of process is not performed pursuant to the governing rules of civil procedure, a lawsuit cannot proceed. Service of Process in NJ and PA Personal service is required to be the first attempted means of service in New Jersey. If personal service is not successful, then service may be made by mailing a copy of the process via registered or certified mail with return receipt requested to the defendant’s usual place of abode or business/place of employment, or to an authorized agent. The party attempting to serve the defendant by mail can choose to mail the process by regular mail as well, and if the defendant refuses to accept or claim the registered or certified copy, and the regular mail copy is not returned, then service is considered effectuated. Pennsylvania allows for a defendant to be served via personal service by handing a copy to the defendant or by delivering a copy to an adult family household member at the defendant’s residence. Pennsylvania also permits service of process by mail. Process can be served by mail requiring a signature of the defendant. If the mail is unclaimed, alternative service must be attempted. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Robert Devine, James Burger and Susan Zingone Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Zingone may be contacted at zingones@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor Sues Construction Defect Claimants for Defamation

    June 28, 2013 —
    Andrew Smith and Armando Delgado both own condos in the Willowbrook condominium complex in East Manatee, Florida, and they’ve both been dealing with structural problems with their homes. Now they’re together in another matter as the contractor who has been hired to do the repairs has sued them for defamation. The homeowners claim that the construction company is trying to intimidate them. KB Homes, which built the Willowbrook complex, hired Dueall Construction to repair the buildings. Anthony Robbins, one of the owners of Dueall, is currently on probation for cocaine trafficking. Smith put this information on a website associated with complaints about KB Homes, while Delgado put a banner on the back of his pickup truck. The lawsuit claims that Smith and Delgado “have initiated a campaign to smear and defame Dueall and its owners.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Deterioration Known To Insured Forecloses Collapse Coverage

    January 28, 2019 —
    The insurer properly denied coverage for collapse of a building when the insured knew from an expert’s examination that the walls of his house were deteriorating. Jaimes v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2018 U. S. Dust. LEXIS 198224 (D. Colo. Nov. 21, 2018). The insured discovered a crack in the wall of his home. He hired Anchor Engineering to inspect. Anchor found a large bulge in the south wall. Several problems with deterioration were noted in the basement. The structure of the house was unstable and dangerous. The insured filed a claim with his homeowners insurer, Liberty. The claim was denied because damage to the wall was the result of deterioration. The south wall of the house later collapsed. The insured submitted a second claim. Liberty again denied the claim because the collapse was the result of deterioration of the wall. The insured sued. 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

    Action Needed: HB24-1230 Spells Trouble for Colorado Construction Industry and its Insurers

    March 25, 2024 —
    In an apparent gift to plaintiffs’ construction defect lawyers, Representatives Parenti and Bacon introduced House Bill 24-1230 on February 12, 2024. The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee and is scheduled for hearing on March 6th, during the afternoon session beginning at 1:30 pm. To date, the bill does not have any senate sponsors, perhaps because the senators are more interested in serving their constituents’ needs for attainable housing than in lining the pockets of their plaintiffs’ construction defect attorney friends. According to the bill’s summary, HB 24-1230 contains the following provisions: Current law declares void any express waivers of or limitations on the legal rights or remedies provided by the “Construction Defect Action Reform Act” or the “Colorado Consumer Protection Act.” Sections 1 and 4 make it a violation of the “Colorado Consumer Protection Act” to obtain or attempt to obtain a waiver or limitation that violates the aforementioned current law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com