BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction experts
    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


    COVID-19 Response: Essential Business Operations: a High-Stakes Question Under Proliferating “Stay at Home” Orders

    Serving Notice of Nonpayment Under Miller Act

    Defense Owed for Product Liability Claims That Do Not Amount to Faulty Workmanship

    Tropical Storms Pile Up Back-to-Back-to-Back Out West

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers

    No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims under Kentucky Law

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    Design Immunity Does Not Shield Public Entity From Claim That it Failed to Warn of a Dangerous Condition

    Heavy Rains Cause Flooding, Mudslides in Japan

    Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

    Colorado Homebuyers Must be in Privity of Contract with Developer to Assert Breach of Implied Warranty of Suitability

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

    Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage

    Biggest U.S. Gas Leak Followed Years of Problems, State Says

    Injured Subcontractor Employee Asserts Premise Liability Claim Against General Contractor

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter – A Year in Review

    New Orleans Is Auctioning Off Vacant Lots Online

    Products Liability Law – Application of Economic Loss Rule

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    Good Ole Duty to Defend

    Midview Board of Education Lawsuit Over Construction Defect Repairs

    More on Fraud, Opinions and Contracts

    Green Construction Claims: More of the Same

    New Report Reveals Heavy Civil Construction Less Impacted by COVID-19 Than Commercial Construction

    One Nation, Under Renovation

    Fall 2024 Legislative Update:

    In Real Life the Bad Guy Sometimes Gets Away: Adding Judgment Debtors to a Judgment

    Proposed Law Protecting Tenants Amended: AB 828 Updated

    Combating Climate Change by Reducing Embodied Energy in the Built Environment

    Insurer’s Duty to Defend: When is it Triggered? When is it Not?

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    Wildfire Risk Harms California Home Values, San Francisco Fed Study Finds

    2022 Construction Outlook: Continuing Growth But at Slower Pace

    Tesla’s Solar Roof Pricing Is Cheap Enough to Catch Fire

    Delaware Supreme Court Won’t Halt Building

    Drafting the Bond Form, Particularly Performance Bond Form

    Montana Federal Court Upholds Application of Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Insurer Waives Objection to Appraiser's Partiality by Waiting Until Appraisal Issued

    Surety Trends to Keep an Eye on in the Construction Industry

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

    Quick Note: Independent Third-Party Spoliation Of Evidence Claim

    Measure of Damages in Negligent Procurement of Surety Bonds / Insurance

    Traub Lieberman Chair Emeritus Awarded the 2022 Vince Donohue Award by the International Association of Claim Professionals

    Contractor Pleads Guilty to Disadvantaged-Business Fraud

    Federal Lawsuit Accuses MOX Contractors of Fraud

    The International Codes Development Process is Changing to Continue Building Code Modernization

    Randy Maniloff Recognized by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® as a "Lawyer of the Year"

    Incorporate Sustainability in Building Design to Meet Green Construction Goals

    Corps Spells Out Billions in Infrastructure Act Allocations
    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. Drawing 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

    Building Down in November, Even While Home Sales Rise

    January 17, 2013 —
    The Chicago Sun-Times reports that construction saw a small decline in November, the first since the spring. Happily, though this was the first dip in eight months, construction spending dropped only 0.3 percent, compared to October. The Sun-Times noted that the level of construction is well below what is considered healthy for the economy, while still being above the low of February 2011. While fewer homes (and other buildings) were built, sales of new homes were up 4.4 percent in November. Home purchases were at their highest rate in more than two years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Embracing Generative Risk Mitigation in Construction

    February 12, 2024 —
    Project delays have long plagued the construction industry, with risk often identified as the primary culprit. However, finding effective solutions to mitigate risk on complex projects has remained daunting. Traditional methods for simulating risk primarily focus on extending project timelines, overlooking the diverse range of opportunities available for risk mitigation. With the construction industry’s digital transformation, generative methodologies have emerged to handle complex decision-making in uncertain situations. This article aims to shed light on the limitations of existing risk modeling and introduce a novel approach known as generative risk mitigation to enhance decision-making under deep uncertainty. According to McKinsey, 98% of megaprojects experience cost overruns exceeding 30%. Project delays have become so pervasive that the industry has grown accustomed to them. For example, in 2022, the UK government issued ‘The Green Book,’ which requires contingency funds in projects, such as a 44% contingency budget for standard civil projects. This implies that for a $100 million project, you should allocate $144 million to manage expected risks. There is no denying significant academic literature on the root cause of these delays: it is ‘risk,’ and there is an entire industry based on it. Conversations with project directors and risk experts reveal the same issue, different project. And that issue is that we cannot easily forecast risk, qualify the impacts or fully understand the opportunities that exist to mitigate risks and make timely decisions. A method that will finally help us overcome this has emerged within the industry. Reprinted courtesy of Georgia Stillwell, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Excess Policy Triggered Once Retention Paid, Even if Loss Not Covered By Excess

    July 23, 2014 —
    The Fifth Circuit determined that the Umbrella policies took effect once the primary insurance was exhausted by claims not covered by the Umbrella policies. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. W&T Offshore, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11775 (5th Cir. June 23, 2014). W&T had primary and Umbrella/Excess coverage to protect its offshore oil rigs from hurricane damage. The primary policies covered property damage and third party claims. The Umbrella policies only covered third-party claims. All policies covered Removal of Debris (ROD). In September 2008, Hurricane Ike caused damage to 150 offshore platforms in which W&T had an interest. W&T submitted over $150 million in claims for property damage to the primary carriers. The primary policies had a $10 million self-insured retention (SIR). The primary policies covered $150 million in coverage over the $10 million SIR. Anticipating that W&T would submit all of its ROD claims, which were estimated to exceed $50 million, the Umbrella carriers filed suit for a declaratory judgment. 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

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building

    March 16, 2011 —

    According to a story published last Thursday in Seattle PI: " The 25-story McGuire Apartments, at Second Avenue and Wall Street, would cost more to fix than the building is worth, according to its owners. Its most serious defect involves steel cables that are corroding inside of concrete slabs because the ends weren’t properly treated with a rust-proof coating and a pocket in the edge of the concrete that wasn’t properly sealed"

    The report by Aubrey Cohen outlines the demolition plans which are expected to take between 12 and 18 months, and will utilize robotic Brokk Machines. The demolition plan calls for one story at a time to be demolished, with the debris to be trucked offsite. Demolition plans aim to minimize disruption to residents and businesses in the area by Limiting work 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays with "impact and percussive activities" limited to 8 a.m to 5 p.m weekdays.

    Read More...

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

    Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL

    August 03, 2020 —
    On June 29, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned a longstanding precedent that commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurers have historically relied upon to deny insurance coverage for claims involving pre-1986 CGL policies. See Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369, 372, 460 N.W.2d 329, 331 (1990). In its recent ruling, the state Supreme Court unanimously agreed that an Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) 1986 standard CGL policy, which is sold to construction contractors across the United States, provides coverage for property damage to a policyholder’s work product that resulted from a subcontractor’s unintended faulty workmanship. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., No. 159510, 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020). In 2008, Skanska USA Building, Inc., the construction manager on a renovation project for Mid-Michigan Medical Center, signed a subcontract with defendant M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors (“MAP”) to install a new heating and cooling (“HVAC”) system. Id. During the renovation, MAP installed some of the expansion joints in the new HVAC system backwards. Id. The defective installation caused approximately $1.4 million in property damage to concrete, steel and the heating system, which Skanska discovered nearly two years after MAP completed the project. Id. After performing the repairs and replacing the damaged property, Skanska sought repayment for the repair costs from MAP and also submitted a claim to Amerisure seeking coverage as an insured under the CGL policy. Id. When Amerisure rejected Skanska’s claim, Skanska sued both parties. Id. Amerisure relied on the holding in Hawkeye and argued that MAP’s defective workmanship was not a covered “occurrence” under the CGL policy, which the policy defined as an accident. Id. at *4. The Michigan Court of Appeals ignored the express language contained in the CGL policy and applied a prior appellate court precedent from Hawkeye, finding that MAP’s faulty work was not an “occurrence” and thus, did not trigger CGL coverage. Id. at *4. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that Skanska was an Amerisure policyholder and that the only property damage was to Skanska’s own work, which was not covered under the CGL policy. Id. at *5. In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding unanimously that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the holding of Hawkeye because it failed to consider the impact of the 1986 revisions to standard CGL insurance policies. Id. at *10. Chief Justice Bridget M. McCormack explained that the Hawkeye decision rested on the 1973 version of the ISO form insurance policy, which specifically excluded certain business risks from coverage such as property damage to a policyholder’s own work. Id. The Supreme Court agreed that while Hawkeye was correctly decided, it did not apply here because the 1986 revised ISO policy includes an exception for property damage caused by a subcontractor’s unintentional faulty work. Id. The Supreme Court said that under the plain reading of the current CGL policy language, an “accident” could include a subcontractor’s unintentional defective work that damaged a policyholder’s work product and thus, may qualify as an “occurrence” covered under the policy. Id. at *9. The Supreme Court defined an “accident” (which was not defined in the Amerisure policy) as “an undefined contingency, a casualty, a happening by chance, something out of the usual course of things, unusual, fortuitous, not anticipated, and not naturally to be expected.” Id. at *5; see Allstate Ins. Co. v. McCarn, 466 Mich. 277, 281, 645 N.W.2d 20, 23 (2002). The Supreme Court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that MAP purposefully installed the expansion joints backwards, nor was there evidence indicating that the parties affected by MAP’s negligence anticipated, foresaw, or expected MAP’s defective installation or property damage. Skanska, 2020 WL 3527909, at *4. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that an “occurrence” may have happened, which would trigger coverage under the CGL policy. Id. at *10. Although this landmark decision changes Michigan law, the decision is limited to cases involving the 1986 ISO policy language revisions to CGL insurance policies. Id. The Supreme Court's decision does not overturn Hawkeye, but rather limits Hawkeye’s authority to cases involving the 1973 ISO form. Id. Gabrielle Szlachta-McGinn was a summer associate at Newmeyer Dillion as part of the firm's 2020 summer class. You may learn more about Newmeyer Dillion's construction litigation services and find the group's key contacts at https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/construction-litigation/. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Defining Construction Defects

    February 04, 2013 —
    Joseph M. Junfola has started a series at PropertyCasualty360.com on construction defect, and as is appropriate with an in-depth look, he starts by defining the central terms. What is a construction defect? What is a construction defect claim? Junfola notes that "there is no one uniform definition in all jurisdictions," and so he looks at the commonalities to "fashion at least a working definition." Nevada says that a construction defect "includes a defect in the design, construction, manufacture, repair or landscaping of a new residence, of an alteration of or an addition to an existing residence, or of an appurtenance." According to Florida it is "a deficiency in, or a deficiency arising of, the design, specifications, surveying, planning, supervision, observation of construction, or construction, repair, alteration, or remodeling of real property." He continues that a construction defect claim is "a claim for damages, i.e. money, arising out of a defect in construction, including defective design, faulty workmanship, and defective materials," but he notes that this is typically pursuant to the discovery of the problem within a given time. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    $17B Agreement Streamlines Disney World Development Plans

    July 22, 2024 —
    Walt Disney Parks and Resorts received the green light on $17 billion in development plans in and around Walt Disney World in Orange County, Fla,, garnering approval June 12 from the board of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD) for its sprawling capital plan. Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    LA’s $1.2 Billion Graffiti Towers Put on Sale After Bankruptcy

    June 04, 2024 —
    For sale: Steel skeletons of three towers in downtown Los Angeles, erected by a Chinese developer that spent $1.2 billion before running into financial troubles. The site, called Oceanwide Plaza, became famous this year when graffiti artists covered the 49-floor-tall structures. Now, the property is going on the market, with lenders and other creditors needing about $400 million to recoup their money. The brokerage Colliers and advisory firm Hilco Real Estate have been hired to market and handle a sale of the property, subject to bankruptcy court approval, according to a statement. “We are determined to run a disciplined and orderly process to identify the right developer to finish the project in time for the 2028 Summer Olympics,” said Mark Tarczynski, an executive vice president at Colliers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg