BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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


    Nevada Update: Nevada Commissioner of Insurance Updates Burning Limits Statute with Emergency Regulation

    Mexico's Richest Man Carlos Slim to Rebuild Collapsed Subway Line

    New Jersey Courts Sign "Death Knell" for 1979 Weedo Decision

    Julie Firestone & Francois Ecclesiaste Recognized as 2023 MSBA North Star Lawyers

    Manhattan Home Prices Top Pre-Crisis Record on Luxury Deals

    Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy

    Expect the Unexpected (Your Design Contracts in a Post-COVID World)

    Supreme Court Declines to Address CDC Eviction Moratorium

    Be Sure to Bring Up Any Mechanic’s Lien Defenses Early and Often

    Subrogation 101 (and Why Should I Care?)

    California insured’s duty to cooperate and insurer’s right to select defense counsel

    Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings

    Defects in Texas High School Stadium Angers Residents

    Bert Hummel Appointed Vice Chair of State Bar of Georgia Bench & Bar Committee

    What Happens When a Secured Creditor Files a Late Claim in an Equity Receivership?

    DC District Court Follows Ninth Circuit’s Lead Dismissing NABA’s Border Wall Case

    Examining Construction Defect as Occurrence in Recent Case Law and Litigation

    Maine Case Demonstrates High Risk for Buying Home “As Is”

    Catch 22: “If You’re Moving Dirt, You Need to Control Your Dust” (But Don’t Use Potable Water!)

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Millennium’s Englander Buys $71.3 Million Manhattan Co-Op

    California’s Housing Costs Endanger Growth, Analyst Says

    Travelers Insurance Sues Chicago for $26M in Damages to Willis Tower

    Kahana Feld Partner Jeff Miragliotta and Senior Associate Rachael Marvin Obtain Early Dismissal of Commercial Litigation Cases in New York and New Jersey

    The “Your Work” Exclusion—Is there a Trend against Coverage?

    Alleging Property Damage in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Challenging a Termination for Default

    Seattle’s Audacious Aquarium Throws Builders Swerves, Curves, Twists and Turns

    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    Insured's Complaint for Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Adequately Pleads Consequential Damages

    Certificates Of Merit For NC Lawsuits Against Engineers And Architects? (Still No)(Law Note)

    Structural Defects in Thousands of Bridges in America

    Preventing Common Electrical Injuries on the Jobsite

    Indirect Benefit Does Not Support Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Prime Contractor

    He Turned Wall Street Offices Into Homes. Now He Vows to Remake New York

    Preservationists Want to Save Penn Station. Yes, That Penn Station.

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

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    No Coverage for Negligent Misrepresentation without Allegations of “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage”

    General Liability Alert: A Mixed Cause of Action with Protected and Non-Protected Activity Not Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion

    Motion to Dismiss Insurer's Counterclaim for Construction Defects Is Granted

    ASCE Statement on House Failure to Pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Beam Fracture on Closed Mississippi River Bridge Is at Least Two Years Old

    Prevailing Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Statutory Attorneys’ Fees Even if Defended by Principal

    Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Pennsylvania Payment Act

    Mixing Concrete, Like Baking a Cake, is Fraught with Problems When the Recipe is Not Followed

    Court Denies Insured's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Seeking to Compel Appraisal

    Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

    What Is the Best Way to Avoid Rezoning Disputes?

    US Court Disputes $1.8B AECOM Damage Award in ‘Remarkable Fraud’ Suit
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    New York Court Rejects Owner’s Bid for Additional Insured Coverage

    September 06, 2021 —
    Tenders for additional insured coverage in construction accidents are frequently litigated in New York courts. Although the past few years have seen changes in the law regarding the causal nexus between the named insured’s work and coverage for the purported additional insured, courts often find there is at least a duty to defend the additional insured where there are allegations of the employer/subcontractor’s presence at the site. An exception is the recent decision in Gemini Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Index No. 652669/20 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Lebovits, J.). In that case, Gemini insured the owner and general contractor of a construction project, and Lloyd’s insured the injured claimant’s employer under a policy endorsed to provide additional insured coverage to entities who “have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement” with the named insured that they must be “added as additional insured.” Although the court found that the contracts here satisfied this requirement for additional insured coverage, the court’s analysis did not end there. Noting that even where such contract exists, the Lloyd’s policy would not provide additional insured coverage “in all circumstances” (emphasis in original), the court next considered whether the underlying injury was “caused in whole or in part by: 1. [The named insured’s] acts or omissions, or 2. The acts or omissions of those acting on [the named insured’s] behalf,” as required under the endorsement’s wording. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

    California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

    June 15, 2020 —
    In another round of litigation involving coverage issues between Montrose Chemical Corporation and its insurers, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Montrose, adopting vertical exhaustion of excess policies. Montrose Chem. Corp. of Calif. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 9 Ca. 5th 215 (2020). In 1990, the United States and the State of California sued Montrose for contamination from 1947 to 1982 caused by Montrose's facility manufacturing insecticides. Montrose had primary and excess liability policies from defendant insurers between 1961 and 1985. Forty insurers collectively issued more than 115 excess policies, which collectively provided coverage sufficient to indemnify Montrose's anticipate total liability. Primary coverage was exhausted. Each excess policy provided that Montrose had to exhaust the limits of its underlying coverage before there would be excess coverage. Which excess carrier could be called on first was the issued before the California Supreme Court. Montrose proposed a rule of "vertical exhaustion" or "elective stacking," whereby it could access any excess policy once it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points in the same policy period. The insurers, in contract, argued for "horizontal exhaustion," whereby Montrose could access an excess policy only after it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. 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

    Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 – Expert Testimony

    October 30, 2023 —
    In April, the Supreme Court sent a list of proposed amendments to Congress that amend the Federal Rules of Evidence. Absent action by Congress, the rules go into effect December 1, 2023. The proposed amendments affect Rules 106, 615 and, relevant to this article, 702. Rule 702 addresses testimony by an expert witness. The proposed rule reads as follows (new material is underlined; matters omitted are lined through): A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:
    1. the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
    2. the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
    3. the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
    4. the expert has reliably applied expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    February 21, 2013 —
    The Las Vegas Review-Journal is supporting efforts to reform the state’s construction defect laws. Although the intention was to “protect homeowners from the costs of shoddy workmanship,” they state the laws have instead “enriched lawyers and made housing more expensive.” The take the Las Vegas homeowner association scandal as a sign that reform is needed. A further sign of needed reform is that during a time when new home sales decreased, construction defect claims more than tripled. The editorial notes that “current law allows lawsuits to be brought for cosmetic imperfections that pose no risks.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Kumagai Drops Most in 4 Months on Building Defect: Tokyo Mover

    June 11, 2014 —
    Kumagai Gumi Co. (1861), a Japanese construction company, fell the most in four months after saying an apartment complex it had built has defects. The shares dropped 5.7 percent to 264 yen at the close of trading in Tokyo, the biggest decline since Feb. 4. Construction flaws in supporting pillars were found in the building completed in March 2003 in Yokohama City, south of Tokyo, the company said in a statement through the stock exchange today. The residents have been asked to relocate to temporary shelters and further investigation is required, it said. “This is a big negative for Kumagai’s reputation and it may hurt the company’s future earnings,” said Yoji Otani, an analyst at Deutsche Bank AG in Tokyo. The latest defect comes after Mitsubishi Estate Co. (8802) said in March it will rebuild a residential complex, constructed by Kajima Corp. (1812), in central Tokyo, after defects were found. Mitsui Fudosan Co. (8801) said it would repair some parts of an apartment building in Kawasaki City after the builder Shimizu Corp. (1803) found cracks in the concrete of some columns in April. Ms. Chu may be contacted at kchu2@bloomberg.net; Mr. Buckland may be contacted at kbuckland1@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen Chu and Kevin Buckland, Bloomberg

    Is Your Contract “Mission Essential?” Recovering Costs for Performing During a Force Majeure Event Under Federal Regulations

    May 10, 2022 —
    Federal contractors have faced unprecedented challenges performing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional costs have included delays and inefficiencies, site closures, quarantines, unavailability of supplies and materials, and full shutdowns of subcontractor operations. For contractors performing under fixed price contracts, the cost impact of COVID-19 was likely severe. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) recognizes “epidemics” as a force majeure event that may excuse non-performance. Many federal contracts include some version of the Default clause, which prevents the government from terminating a contractor for default due to impacts of force majeure events that are beyond a contractor’s control, such as an epidemic. See, e.g., FAR 52.249-10. See also Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Dep’t of State, CBCA No. 5683 (Apr. 20. 2020). The Default clause, however, operates as a shield from liability, not a sword authorizing recovery. Contractors are now left wondering whether any avenue exists to recover additional costs incurred after performing in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to a likely influx of claims and requests for equitable adjustment due to COVID-19 impacts, the federal government largely took the position that contractors were entitled to extensions of time, but not to additional costs. This article explores the avenues that may be available for contractors to recover costs for performing during a force majeure event that would otherwise be non-compensable. Reprinted courtesy of Joneis M. Phan, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs and Sarah K. Bloom, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs). Mr. Phan may be contacted at jphan@watttieder.com Ms. Bloom may be contacted at sbloom@watttieder.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    N.J. Appellate Court Applies Continuous Trigger Theory in Property Damage Case and Determines “Last Pull” for Coverage

    November 15, 2017 —
    The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, published an important decision addressing several fundamental issues regarding how a commercial general liability (CGL) policy applies to long-term property damage. The court held that: (1) a continuous trigger theory of coverage may be applied to third-party liability claims involving progressive property damage caused by an insured’s allegedly defective work; (2) the “last pull” (i.e., the cutoff point) of the continuous trigger is when the “essential nature and scope” of the property damage first becomes known or could reasonably be known; and (3) the “last pull” is not when the property damage is “attributed” to the insured’s faulty work. The underlying action in Air Master & Cooling Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co., et al. 1 concerned property damage arising out of the construction of a seven-story, 101-unit condominium building in Montclair, New Jersey. The project’s construction manager hired Air Master & Cooling, Inc. (Air Master) to perform HVAC work on the project, including installing individual HVAC equipment in each resident’s unit from 2005 to 2008. In early 2008, unit owners began complaining about water infiltration and damage to their windows, ceilings, and other portions of their units. The general contractor and developer began assessing the damage and making repairs. Eventually, in April 2010, an expert consultant performed a moisture survey of the roof and discovered 111 areas that were damaged by water infiltration. The expert report indicated that “it [was] impossible to determine when [the] moisture infiltration occurred.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com

    Ireland Said to Plan Home Loans Limits to Prevent Bubble

    October 01, 2014 —
    Ireland’s central bank plans to impose limits for the first time on how much banks can lend home buyers as real estate values soar again in the home of western Europe’s worst property collapse, two people with knowledge of the matter said. The regulator is preparing to publish a consultation paper on its proposals within weeks, said one of the people, who asked not to be named, as the matter is private. Banks and lobby groups will have a chance to comment on the plans, which center on introducing loan-to-value and loan-to-income restrictions. A spokesman for the central bank in Dublin declined to comment. Irish homes prices are surging even as banks grapple with the aftermath of mortgage crisis that forced the government to bail out most of the nation’s lenders. A quarter of the country’s owner-occupier home loans are in arrears or had their terms eased. Loans granted during the boom for more than 85 percent of the property value were most likely to default in the wake of the crash, central bank economists said today. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joe Brennan, Bloomberg
    Mr. Brennan may be contacted at jbrennan29@bloomberg.net