BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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


    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    Eighth Circuit Considers Judicial Estoppel in Hazardous Substance Release-Related Personal Injury Case

    Unjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding Contract

    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

    Tokyo Building Flaws May Open Pandora's Box for Asahi Kasei

    Not So Universal Design Fails (guest post)

    Year and a Half Old Las Vegas VA Emergency Room Gets Rebuilt

    Agree First or it May Cost You Later

    Drafting the Bond Form, Particularly Performance Bond Form

    The Road to Rio 2016: Zika, Super Bacteria, and Construction Delays. Sounds Like Everything is Going as Planned

    Meet the Forum's Neutrals: TOM DUNN

    Required Contract Provisions for Construction Contracts in California

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

    UK Construction Defect Suit Lost over One Word

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

    First-Time Buyers Shut Out of Expanding U.S. Home Supply

    Foreclosing Junior Lienholders and Recording A Lis Pendens

    Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims

    Coverage Denied for Ensuing Loss After Foundation Damage

    Court Says No to Additional Lawyer in Las Vegas Fraud Case

    Real Property Alert: Recording Notice of Default as Trustee Before Being Formally Made the Trustee Does Not Make Foreclosure Sale Void

    Lewis Brisbois Moves to Top 15 in Law360 2022 Diversity Snapshot

    Florida Issues Emergency Fraud Prevention Rule to Protect Policyholders in Wake of Catastrophic Storms

    Call Me Maybe? . . . Don’t Waive Your Rights Under the Right to Repair Act’s Prelitigation Procedures

    How Construction Contracts are Made. Hint: It’s a Bit Like Making Sausage

    Window Manufacturer Weathers Recession by Diversifying

    Changes to Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act in New York Introduced

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

    Remand of Bad Faith Claim Evidences Split Among Florida District Courts

    A Recap of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Summer Slate

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/14/24) – Commercial Real Estate AI, Hotel Pipeline Growth, and Housing Market Improvements

    What You Don’t Know About Construction Law Can Hurt Your Engineering Firm (Law Note)

    Does the Russia Ukraine War Lead to a Consideration in Your Construction Contracts?

    Janus v. AFSCME

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Fifteen White and Williams Lawyers

    Oregon Construction Firm Sued for Construction Defects

    Construction Laborers Sue Contractors Over Wage Theft

    Killer Subcontract Provisions

    Fourth Circuit Questions EPA 2020 Clean Water Act 401 Certification Rule Tolling Prohibition

    Proposed Changes to Federal Lease Accounting Standards

    Traub Lieberman Partner Kathryn Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Secure Final Summary Judgment in Favor of Homeowner’s Insurance Company

    HOA Coalition Statement on Construction-Defects Transparency Legislation

    New Jersey Appellate Court Reinstates Asbestos Action

    An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    Saving Manhattan: Agencies, Consultants, Contractors Join Fight to Keep New York City Above Water

    Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Two Recognized as Rising Stars

    “But it’s 2021!” Service of Motion to Vacate Via Email Found Insufficient by the Eleventh Circuit

    ASHRAE Approves Groundbreaking Standard to Reduce the Risk of Disease Transmission in Indoor Spaces
    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

    General Partner Is Not Additional Insured For Construction Defect Claim

    August 26, 2015 —
    The court determined that the project owner's general partner was not an additional insured entitled to a defense and indemnity against claims for construction defects. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v,. Cypress Fairway Condo. Ass'n, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94012 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2015). Construction of the Cypress Fairway Condominium project took place in 1999 and 2000. Cypress Fairway Ltd. ("Cypress") was the owner and Vineland Partners , LLC ("Vineland") was its general partner. The general contractor was Winter Park Construction Company ("WPC"). Water intrusion and property damage occurred, but it was unclear when or whether the damage was known. Cypress' expert indicated that the damage began shortly after the end of construction. In 2004, the complex was sold to Cypress Madison Ownership Company. In 2010, the Cypress Fairway Condominium Association sued Cypress and Vineland. Count V of the underlying complaint asserted there were construction defects that Cypress and Vineland were responsible for when they owned and managed the project. Count VI alleged that Cypress and Vineland negligently supplied information which the Association relied on for the purchase of the condominiums. 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

    A Win for Policyholders: California Court of Appeals Applies Vertical Exhaustion for Continuous Injury Claims

    August 24, 2020 —
    Fresh off the heels of the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Super. Ct. of L.A. Cty. (“Montrose III”),1 policyholders scored another victory as another California court rejected horizontal exhaustion in the context of continuous injury cases. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, in SantaFe Braun Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., adopted a rule of vertical exhaustion, holding that “[absent an explicit policy provision to the contrary] the insured becomes entitled to the coverage it purchased from the excess carriers once the primary policies specified in the excess policy have been exhausted.”2 The dispute in SantaFe Braun began in 1992 when asbestos-related claims were first filed against Braun. In 1998, Braun’s three primary insurers agreed in writing to defend and settle the underlying claims against Braun while resolving allocation among themselves. In 2004, Braun filed the current suit against its excess insurers, seeking a declaration that the excess insurers were obligated to help cover the costs of the underlying asbestos-related lawsuits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Celia B. Waters, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Waters may be contacted at cbw@sdvlaw.com

    Newmeyer & Dillion’s Alan Packer Selected to 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    July 18, 2018 —
    WALNUT CREEK, Calif. – JULY 10, 2018 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that litigation attorney Alan Packer has been selected to the 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers list. No more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by Super Lawyers each year. Packer is a partner in the firm's expanding Walnut Creek office. He has practiced law in California for over 30 years, mostly representing parties involved in real estate, home building, commercial construction, and insurance matters. He represents business clients, homebuilders, property owners, and others in a broad range of legal matters. Packer is a frequent speaker at seminars and in-house training sessions for clients on issues relating to risk management, construction litigation, and insurance. Earlier this year, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys in Newport Beach and Las Vegas were also selected to Super Lawyers lists. Packer brings its total to 19 Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys recognized. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations, resulting in a comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
    Alan Packer Partner Walnut Creek Contact 925.988.3200 alan.packer@ndlf.com Practices Business Litigation Construction Litigation Insurance Law Real Estate Litigation About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole

    February 10, 2012 —

    Judge Gleuda E. Edmonds, a magistrate judge in the United States District Court of Arizona issued a ruling in Guadiana v. State Farm on January 25, 2012. Judge Edmonds recommended a partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

    Ms. Guandiana’s home had water damage due to pluming leaks in September 2004. She was informed that polybutylene pluming in her house could not be repaired in parts “it must be completely replaced.” She had had the plumbing replaced. State Farm denied her claim, arguing that “the tear-out provision did not cover the cost of accessing and replacing those pipes that were not leaking.”

    In September 2007, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss. The court rejected this motion, stating that “If Guadiana can establish as a matter of fact that the system that caused the covered loss included all the pipes in her house and it was necessary to replace all the pipes to repair that system, State Farm is obligated to pay the tear-out costs necessary to replace all the pipes, even those not leaking.”

    In March 2009, State Farm filed for summary judgment, which the court granted. State Farm argued that “the tear-out provision only applied to ‘repair’ and not ‘replace’ the system that caused the covered leak.” As for the rest of the piping, State Farm argued that “the policy does not cover defective materials.”

    In December 2011, Ms. Guadiana filed for summary judgment, asking the court to determine that “the policy ‘covers tear-out costs necessary to adequately repair the plumbing system, even if an adequate repair requires replacing all or part of the system.”

    In her ruling, Judge Edmonds noted that Ms. Guadiana’s claim is that “the water damage is a covered loss and she is entitled to tear-out costs necessary to repair the pluming system that caused that covered loss.” She rejected State Farm’s claim that it was not obligated to replace presumably defective pipes. Further, she rejected State Farm’s argument that they were only responsible for the leaking portion, noting “Guadiana intends to prove at trial that this is an unusual case where repair of her plumbing system requires replacement of all the PB plumbing.”

    Judge Edmonds concluded by directing the District Court to interpret the tear out issue as “the tear-out provision in State Farm’s policy requires State Farm to pay all tear-out costs necessary to repair the plumbing system (that caused the covered loss) even if repair of the system requires accessing more than the leaking portion of the system.”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 7: How to Successfully Prepare, Submit and Negotiate the Claim

    August 22, 2022 —
    Prior posts in this series have discussed insurance coverage issues that pertain directly to wildfire claims, but we have not yet addressed how one proceeds following a loss. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we discuss the preparation, submission and negotiation of the insurance claim. Preparing a Claim As different policies provide different timelines, where possible, it is advisable to submit the claim as soon as reasonably possible. Insurers commonly cite late submission as a basis for denial with jurisdictions varying on the import of “late” submission. Insurers have a right to reasonable docu­mentation of a claim before paying. Often, they will decline to consider a claim on its merits until such documentation is provided. The policy will specify whether to submit a hard copy or file online, but either way it is advisable to maintain a copy online or in a remote geographic location. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Planes, Trains and Prevailing Wages. Ok, No Planes, But Trains and Prevailing Wages Yes

    October 25, 2021 —
    The California Supreme Court doesn’t often delve into construction-related issues, but this year we’ve got two cases, both related to the payment of prevailing wages on California public works projects. The first, Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co., Inc. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1118 which we discussed in our last blog post, concerned whether mobilization work qualifies as a “public work” and in turn requires the payment of prevailing wages. On the same day that the Supreme Court issued its decision in Mendoza, it issued a decision in Busker v. Wabtec Corporation, et al. , Case No. S251135 (August 16, 2021). This is the equivalent of being struck by lightning twice. In Busker, the California Supreme Court considered whether on a public transportation project “field work” (e.g., building and outfitting radio towers on land adjacent to train tracks) and “onboard work” (e.g., installing electronic components on train cars and locomotives”) requires the payment of prevailing wage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    New York Public Library’s “Most Comprehensive Renovation” In Its History

    May 13, 2014 —
    Manhattan’s New York Public Library’s renovation plans have been revised after being “the subject of at least three lawsuits and repeated protests by academics, activists, writers and historians,” according to Construction Digital. The previous $300 million plan by Foster & Partners would have required the circulation collections to be relocated during the renovation process. Now, that plan has been abandoned for one that New York Public Library President Anthony Marx calls “the most comprehensive renovation in its history.” “Instead of removing the central stacks and placing the Mid-Manhattan Library in that space, we are proposing to renovate Mid-Manhattan Library at its current site,” Marx told Construction Digital. “This renovation will add much-needed computer labs and an adult education center, and an inspiring, comfortable space for browsing our largest circulating collection.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    More thoughts on Virginia Mechanic’s Liens

    January 28, 2019 —
    As we settled yet another construction case on the courthouse steps today, I began to think about what I should post to begin 2009. Of course, given the construction industry slowdown that is predicted, and the trend at construction projects around the Commonwealth of Virginia that looks to me as if payments will be harder to come by from Owners less willing, for financial reasons, to work with contractors, mechanic’s liens will be more useful, and necessary, now than ever. Virginia mechanic’s liens are unusually strong because your memorandum of lien takes priority over all prior liens on the property that you have improved (including from the bank that is financing the project) except in very limited circumstances. What this means is that, should you properly file and sue to enforce your lien, you get to foreclose and have first crack at any money. By contrast, a judgment lien takes priority only over liens filed after the lien is recorded. 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