BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut forensic architect
    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


    Limiting Services Can Lead to Increased Liability

    Legal Disputes Soar as Poor Information Management Impacts the AEC Industry

    ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of WRDA 2024

    OSHA Begins Enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard. Try Saying That Five Times Real Fast

    Hurry Up and Wait! Cal/OSHA Hits Pause on Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention

    Do Construction Contracts and Fraud Mix After All?

    Gary Bague Elected Chairman of ALFA International’s Board of Directors

    North Dakota Universities Crumble as Oil Cash Pours In

    Understand Agreements in Hold Harmless and Indemnity Provisions

    Massachusetts Roofer Killed in Nine-story Fall

    Eight Things You Need to Know About the AAA’s New Construction Arbitration Rules

    Hurricane Claim Cannot Survive Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052: The “Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013.”

    Behavioral Science Meets Construction: Insights from Whistle Rewards

    Two Injured in Walkway Collapse of Detroit Apartment Complex

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    Proposed Bill Provides a New Federal Tax Credit for the Conversion of Office Buildings

    Tennessee Looks to Define Improvements to Real Property

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces Partner John Van Vlear Named to Board Of Groundwater Resources Association Of California

    Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

    Know When Your Claim “Accrues” or Risk Losing It

    Rainwater Collecting on Rooftop is not Subject to Policy's Flood Sublimits

    The Indemnification Limitation in Section 725.06 does not apply to Utility Horizontal-Type Projects

    Collapse of Breezeway Attached to Building Covered

    Pacing in Construction Scheduling Disputes

    The Pandemic, Proposed Federal Privacy Regulation and the CCPA

    California Imposes New Disabled Access Obligations on Commercial Property Owners

    Eleventh Circuit Rules That Insurer Must Defend Contractor Despite “Your Work” Exclusion, Where Damage Timing Unclear

    City of Pawtucket Considering Forensic Investigation of Tower

    Breaking Down Homeowners Association Laws In California

    Home Buyers Lose as U.S. Bond Rally Skips Mortgage Rates

    Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

    Contractors Pay Heed: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Two Important Issues For Bid Protestors

    Construction on the Rise in Washington Town

    NTSB Sheds Light on Fatal Baltimore Work Zone Crash

    Jury Could Have Found That Scissor Lift Manufacturer Should Have Included “Better” Safety Features

    Florida Self-Insured Retention Satisfaction and Made Whole Doctrine

    Multiple Occurrences Found For Claims Against Supplier of Asbestos Products

    Lending Plunges to 17-Year Low as Rates Curtail Borrowing

    SFAA Commends Congress for Maintaining Current Bonding Protection Levels in National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

    Eleventh Circuit Upholds Coverage for Environmental Damage from Sewage, Concluding It is Not a “Pollutant”

    Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground

    Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos

    General Contractor Cited for Safety Violations after Worker Fatality

    Five Keys to Driving Digital Transformation in Engineering and Construction

    Limitations: There is a Point of No Return

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations

    CA Supreme Court Set to Rule on Important Occurrence Issue Certified by Ninth Circuit
    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

    California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

    October 02, 2018 —
    In its recent decision in Essex Walnut Owner L.P. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138276 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California had occasion to consider the issue of a pollution liability insurer’s obligation to pay for the redesign of a structural support system necessitated by the alleged presence of soil contamination. Aspen’s insured, Essex, owned a parcel of property it was in the process of redeveloping for commercial and residential purposes. The project required excavation activities in order to construct an underground parking lot, and as part of this process, Essex designed a temporary shoring system comprising tied-in retaining walls in order to stabilize the area outside of the excavation. During the excavation work, construction debris was encountered requiring removal. Aspen agreed to pay for a portion of the costs to remove and dispose the debris under the pollution liability policy it issued to Essex. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
    Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

    Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame

    January 13, 2020 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday (on a Thursday) here at Construction Law Musings, Victoria Pynchon (@vickiepynchon) joins us for the 4th time. Victoria is an attorney-mediator with ADR Services, Inc. in Century City; an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association in Los Angeles, California; and, a negotiation consultant and trainer world-wide. Victoria co-founded She Negotiates Training and Consulting in 2010 and writes for ForbesWoman at its She Negotiates blog. She is the author of one of my favorite books on conflict resolution, A is for A*@!#, the Grownups’ ABC’s of Conflict Resolution reviewed at Musings here. First Let’s Talk About Anger Please raise your hand if your clients — corporate clients — are angry about the burdens of litigation. Irritated with the document “demands” and interrogatories. Frustrated about the e-discovery. Ticked off at the way opposing counsel asks them questions as if they’re lying. Hot under the collar about the mounting attorneys’ fees and the distance between the day suit was filed and the probable day on which a trial might eventually be scheduled. Simmering about the time the litigation consumes, time they’d prefer to be spending doing their actual jobs — planning for and implementing business strategies for a profitable future instead of fighting about the unprofitable past. And we’re not even talking about your clients’ anger at the defendant who has stolen their intellectual property or stopped worked at the construction site or refused to release the remaining funds in the construction loan account. And if you believe that powerful people in highly successful and profitable businesses do not fear that litigation might hurt their careers, think again. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Court Narrowly Interprets “Faulty Workmanship” Provision

    March 28, 2018 —
    In a recent victory in their home state of Connecticut, Saxe Doernberger & Vita partners, Jeffrey Vita and Theresa Guertin, representing owner-developer 777 Main Street, LLC, overcame a summary judgment motion filed by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The Connecticut Superior court refused to adopt the insurer’s broad interpretation of the “faulty workmanship” exclusion in an all-risk builders’ risk insurance policy. In 2014, 777 Main Street, LLC began renovations on the 27-story former Hartford National Bank building in downtown Hartford, converting the property from an office building to a mixed residential and commercial space. During the renovation, a subcontractor hired to perform the cleaning the concrete façade of the building accidentally over-sprayed the cleaning material onto the property’s windows. The subcontractor’s attempts to clean the overspray further damaged the structural integrity and cosmetic look of the windows. As a result, the owner was forced to replace over 1,800 windows, costing millions. Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    January 06, 2012 —

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in the case of American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co. Several other insurance companies were party to this case. In the earlier case, the US District Court of Appeals for Arizona had granted a summary judgment to Ohio Casualty Group and National Fire & Marine Insurance Company. At the heart of it, is a dispute over construction defect coverage.

    The general contractor for Astragal Luxury Villas, GFTDC, contracted with American Family to provide it with a commercial liability policy. Coverage was issued to various subcontractors by Ohio Casualty and National Fire. These policies included blanket additional insured endorsements that provided coverage to GFTDC. The subcontractor policies had provisions making their coverage excess over other policies available to GFTDC.

    The need for insurance was triggered when the Astragal Condominium Unit Owners Association filed a construction defect claim in the Arizona Superior Court. CFTDC filed a third-party claim against several subcontractors. The case was settled with American Family paying the settlement, after which it filed seeking reimbursement from the subcontractor’s insurers. The court instead granted summary judgment in favor of Ohio Casualty and National Fire.

    American Family appealed to the Ninth Circuit for a review of the summary judgment, arguing that the “other insurance” clauses were “mutually repugnant and unenforceable.” The Ninth Circuit cited a case from the Arizona Court of Appeals that held that “where two policies cover the same occurrence and both contain ‘other insurance’ clauses, the excess insurance provisions are mutually repugnant and must be disregarded. Each insurer is then liable for a pro rate share of the settlement or judgment.”

    The court noted that unlike other “other insurance” cases, the American Family policy “states that it provides primary CGL coverage for CFTDC and is rendered excess only if there is ‘any other primary insurance’ available to GFTDC as an additional insured.” They note that “the American Family policy purports to convert from primary to excess coverage only if CFTDC has access to other primary insurance as an additional insured.”

    In comparison, the court noted that “the ‘other insurance’ language in Ohio Casualty’s additional insured endorsement cannot reasonably be read to contradict, or otherwise be inconsistent with, the ‘other primary insurance’ provision in the American Family policy.” They find other reasons why National Fire’s coverage did not supersede American Family’s. In this case, the policy is “written explicitly to apply in excess.”

    Finally, the Astragal settlement did not exhaust American Family’s coverage, so they were obligated to pay out the full amount. The court upheld the summary dismissal of American Family’s claims.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Why Construction Firms Should Think Differently on the Issue of Sustainability

    May 25, 2020 —
    How does a construction company differentiate itself from the competition? If the company owner don’t know the answer to this question, or if the first thought that popped into his or her mind was a generic answer along the lines of customer service, keep reading. While all businesses should strive to deliver better results for their customers, if a construction firm is looking to stand out from the crowd, putting sustainability at the very center of everything it does will be a clear difference maker. Finding ways to divert construction and demolition (C&D) waste materials away from landfills and into recycling streams is a must. Keeping track of and measuring your C&D recycling rates on a per-project basis, and also company-wide, can be the difference between winning and losing a contract. Reprinted courtesy of Chris Batterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Batterson may be contacted at chris.batterson@rubiconglobal.com

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    June 16, 2011 —

    Louisiana politicians are still working on a compromise in the state’s construction budget, as reported in the Times-Picayune. Rob Marrianneax, the chair of the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee, removed a $45 million request from Governor Bobby Jindal and added $4 million for projects that Jindal vetoed last year.

    Two senators have formed competing plans to fund redevelopment construction for New Orleans’s Methodist Hospital. Mitch Landrieu, the mayor of New Orleans, hoped for $30 million dollars in state bonds. Senator Cynthia Willard-Lewis proposed an amendment that would supply $1.6 million, while Senator J.P. Morrell has an amendment that would supply $4 million.

    Read the full story…

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

    Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

    April 10, 2019 —
    For years, the Nevada Real Estate Division (“NRED”) and its sub-entity, the Nevada Real Estate Commission (“NREC”), have been tasked with administering the licensing procedures applicable to real estate professionals in Nevada, as well as enforcement of the regulations governing business practices, advertising, commissions, license maintenance, and a host of other dayto-day parameters within which the profession operates. Within the past five years, however, the NREC has tasked itself with the publicly stated goal of “protecting” Nevada real estate licensees and the commissions they earn from out-of-state real estate professionals seeking to do business in the Silver State. While efforts to preserve local real estate opportunities for local brokers might seem sound, an international brokerage firm is challenging the foundation of that structure. If they win, the outcome could have huge implications on the real estate industry in Nevada. Businesses, here’s a breakdown of the existing structure and what the challenge is all about. The Existing Regulatory Structure Through amending their own regulations, the NRED and NREC have created a regulatory structure that:
    • Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any seller (Nevada based or non-Nevada based) of any Nevada real estate;
    • Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any Nevada resident in the purchase of Nevada real estate; and
    • Allows non-Nevada licensed real estate brokers to represent non-Nevada purchasers of Nevada real estate only if the out-of-state broker formally affiliates (and therefore shares commissions with) a resident Nevada-licensed broker.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aaron D. Lovaas, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
    Mr. Lovaas may be contacted at aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com

    Project Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Recording Deadline

    April 08, 2024 —
    The California mechanics lien is one of the most powerful collection remedies available to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are unpaid for work performed and materials supplied in relation to a California private works construction project. The mechanics lien allows the claimant to actually sell the property where the work was carried out in order to obtain payment, entirely of course, against the wishes of the property owner. There are a number of important steps to follow and timelines to be met in order to pursue this remedy. First, Understand Your Preliminary Notice Deadline Working within deadlines is absolutely crucial to preserving mechanics lien rights under California law. The deadlines differ, depending on whether you are a “direct” contractor, also known as “original” or “prime” contractor (one who contracts directly with the property owner) or a subcontractor or material supplier. The process begins with the serving of a “preliminary notice” no later than 20 days after the party serving the preliminary notice begins supplying labor or materials to the project. Direct contractors are only required to serve the preliminary notice on the construction lender (Civil Code section 8200-8216), whereas subcontractors and material suppliers must serve not only the construction lender, but also the owner and direct contractor (see Civil Code section 8200(e)). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com