BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design 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


    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    Another Colorado City Passes Construction Defects Ordinance

    California Court Confirms Broad Coverage Under “Ongoing Operations” Endorsements

    Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative

    Washington Supreme Court Interprets Ensuing Loss Exception in All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

    Appellate Court reverses district court’s finding of alter ego in Sedgwick Properties Development Corporation v. Christopher Hinds (2019WL2865935)

    Denver’s Proposed Solution to the Affordable Housing Crisis

    CA Homeowners Challenging Alternate Pre-Litigation Procedures

    Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

    Nevada Supreme Court Declares Subcontractor Not Required to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice to Supplier

    A New Digital Twin for an Existing Bridge

    Related’s $1 Billion Los Angeles Project Opens After 15-Year Wait

    More In-Depth Details on the Davis-Bacon Act Overhaul

    Eight Ways to Protect a Construction Company Before a Claim Is Filed

    Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, et al.

    Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

    The Louvre Abu Dhabi’s Mega-Structure Domed Roof Completed

    Assert a Party’s Noncompliance of Conditions Precedent with Particularity

    What is the True Value of Rooftop Solar Panels?

    A Court-Side Seat: Citizen Suits, “Facility” Management and Some Nuance for Your Hazard Ranking

    New Proposed Regulations Expand CFIUS Jurisdiction Regarding Real Estate

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Insurance Salesman had No Fiduciary Duty to Policyholders

    No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

    Wow! A Mechanic’s Lien Bill That Helps Subcontractors and Suppliers

    Construction Costs Must Be Reasonable

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Partner Lawrence J. Bracken II Awarded Emory Public Interest Committee’s 2024 Lifetime Commitment to Public Service Award

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    FEMA Fire Management Assistance Granted for the French Fire

    Times Square Alteration Opened Up a Can of Worms

    Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed

    Hawaiian Electric Finalizes $2 Billion Maui Fire Settlement

    Denver Airport's Renovator Uncovers Potential Snag

    Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    OSHA: What to Expect in 2022

    HHMR is pleased to announce that David McLain has been selected as a 2020 Super Lawyer

    Mortenson Subcontractor Fires Worker Over Meta Data Center Noose

    A Few Green Building Notes

    Sensors for Smarter Construction – Interview with Laura Kassovic of MbientLab

    Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

    Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

    California Assembly Passes Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act

    NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak

    Affordable Global Housing Will Cost $11 Trillion

    The BUILDCHAIN Project Enhances Data Exchange and Transparency in the EU Construction Industry

    The Hidden Price of Outdated Damage Prevention Laws: Part I

    Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Replace Lawyers Anytime Soon

    Manhattan Townhouse Sells for a Record $79.5 Million
    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

    Is Modular Construction Destined to Fail?

    March 11, 2024 —
    The construction sector is a harsh environment for innovation. I’ve been following the story of one Finnish innovative contractor, Lehto Group, over the years with enthusiasm. I was saddened to hear that the group’s three significant subsidiaries joined the ranks of many Finnish contractors who have filed for bankruptcy over the last six months. Lehto developed industrialized building concepts and had its own production facilities. The company had a promising start but eventually ran into problems. Was the industrial approach a mistake, or were other factors contributing to the firm’s fall? Three Contributing Factors Lehto Group’s collapse was not a surprise to its competitors, who had observed warning signs years prior. The company’s order book plummeted in 2024 despite still employing around 500 workers. Rakennuslehti, the leading construction magazine in Finland, asked three experienced industry professionals to give their views on Lehto’s failure. The interviewees spoke anonymously due to the small size of the Finnish market and the sensitive nature of commenting on a competitor’s matters. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Seeking Better Peer Reviews After the FIU Bridge Collapse

    September 16, 2019 —
    On the surface, it seemed like an outrageous defensive move following a painful tragedy. Louis Berger Group has refused requests from the Dept. of Labor to hand over emails with FIGG Bridge Engineers about its peer review of the ill-fated Florida International University pedestrian bridge. The structure collapsed on March 15, 2018, killing six people and injuring several others. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    April 25, 2012 —

    After the insurer denied coverage in a homeowner’s policy for construction defects under various exclusions, the court found the ensuing loss provision was ambiguous.Kesling v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38857 (D. Colo. March 22, 2012).

    After purchasing a home from the sellers, the insureds noticed problems with the deck of the home. Massive cracking appeared, causing lifting and leaking on the deck and water running through the exterior foundation wall into the home. There was also damage to the roof and crawlspace.

    The insureds had a homeowner’s policy with American Family, which covered accidental direct physical loss to property described in the policy unless the loss was excluded. They requested coverage for "conditions, defects and damages." American Family denied coverage because wear and tear, as well as damage to foundations, floors and roofs were excluded. The policy did provide coverage, however, for "any resulting loss to property described . . . above, not excluded or excepted in this policy.

    When coverage was denied, the insureds sued American Family.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Quick Note: Staying, Not Dismissing, Arbitrable Disputes Under Federal Arbitration Act

    July 31, 2024 —
    As you hopefully know from posted articles, arbitration is a creature of contract. Stated differently, there must be a contractual basis to have a dispute resolved through binding arbitration. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies to transactions involving interstate commerce. Oftentimes, lawsuits are filed despite an arbitration provision in a contract because parties can, if they desire, waive their rights to have their dispute resolved through binding arbitration. In what should not be a shocker, the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. Spizzirri, 144 S.Ct. 1173, 1178 (2024), held that when a federal “district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute, and a party requests a stay pending arbitration, section 3 of the FAA compels the court to stay the proceeding.” Dismissing the lawsuit should not be the option. Staying the lawsuit should. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Verdict In Favor Of Insured Homeowner Reversed For Improper Jury Instructions

    October 23, 2018 —
    The appellate court reversed the jury verdict in favor of the homeowners based upon improper instructions purporting to impose a duty to adjust the claim and how to construe a contract. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v Mendoza, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 9497 (Fla. Ct. App. July 5, 2018). The insureds incurred water damage to their home caused by a water heater leak. After a claim was filed, the insurer sent an adjuster to investigate the claim. The insurer denied the claim due to an exclusion for constant or repeated seepage or leakage. At trial, the insurer offered testimony that the leak was a continued and repeated seepage of water over a long period of time, which was excluded under the policy, and not a sudden and accidental discharge of water, which would have been covered. 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

    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

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    January 27, 2020 —
    Construction contracts often include a “no damage for delay” clause that denies a contractor the right to recover delay-related costs and limits the contractor’s remedy to an extension of time for noncontractor-caused delays to a project’s completion date. Depending on the nature of the delay and the jurisdiction where the project is located, the contractual prohibition against delay damages may well be enforceable. This article will explore whether an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause is also a bar to recovery of “acceleration” damages, i.e., the costs incurred by the contractor in its attempt to overcome delays to the project’s completion date. Courts are split as to whether damages for a contractor’s “acceleration” efforts are distinguishable from “delay” damages such that they may be recovered under an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause. See, e.g., Siefford v. Hous. Auth. of Humboldt, 223 N.W.2d 816 (Neb. 1974) (disallowing the recovery of acceleration damages under a no-damage-for-delay clause); but see Watson Elec. Constr. Co. v. Winston-Salem, 109 N.C. App. 194 (1993) (allowing the recovery of acceleration damages despite a no-damage-for-delay clause). The scope and effect of a no-damage-for-delay clause depend on the specific laws of the jurisdiction and the factual circumstances involved. There are a few ways for a contractor to circumvent an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause to recover acceleration damages. First, the contractor may invoke one of the state’s enumerated exceptions to the enforceability of the clause. It is helpful to keep in mind that most jurisdictions strictly construe a no-damage-for-delay clause to limit its application. This means that, regardless of delay or acceleration, courts will nonetheless permit the contractor to recover damages if the delay is, for example, of a kind not contemplated by the parties, due to an unreasonable delay, or a result of the owner’s fraud, bad faith, gross negligence, active interference or abandonment of the contract. See Tricon Kent Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 186 P.3d 155, 160 (Colo. App. 2008); United States Steel Corp. v. Mo. P. R. Co., 668 F.2d 435, 438 (8th Cir. 1982); Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. Iowa S. Utils. Co., 355 F. Supp. 376, 396 (S.D. Iowa 1973). Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Christine Z. Fan, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at gropmant@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    March 01, 2012 —

    A Cleveland condo association has sued the developer of their building, claiming that construction defects resulted in water intrusion. The K&D Group, which still owns forty units in the 160-unit building, claim that it’s a maintenance issue that they’d like to see fixed, but it’s their responsibility as the developer. Doug Price, CEO of K&D calls it a “frivolous lawsuit.” He blames a “hostile board” and told The Plain Dealer “there’s simple maintenance that they refuse to do.”

    An outside company evaluated Stonebridge Towers. According to the condo board’s lawyer, Laura Hauser, the building design and construction are to blame for the water intrusion. Hauser said that the board’s “goal through this litigation is to find a resolution for the association, the building and the owners.”

    David Kaman, a Cleveland attorney not involved in the lawsuit, told the Plain Dealer that construction litigation in the Cleveland area had fallen off from 2007, but he sees it on the rise, which he attributes to cost-cutting on recently finished projects. “If an owner moves in and two years later the wallpaper needs to be replaced because the wall is leaking, that’s a construction defect.”

    Read the full story…

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