BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestration
    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


    New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify

    Mold Due to Construction Defects May Temporarily Close Fire Station

    Veterans Day – Thank You for Your Service

    New York Climate Mobilization Act Update: Reducing Carbon Emissions and Funding Solutions

    Construction of World's Tallest Building to Resume With New $1.9B Contract for Jeddah Tower

    The Overlooked Nevada Rule In an Arena Project Lawsuit

    New York Bridge to Be Largest Infrastructure Project in North America

    Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

    New Jersey Strengthens the Structural Integrity of Its Residential Builds

    Motion to Strike Insurer's Expert Opinion Granted

    Minnesota Addresses How Its Construction Statute of Repose Applies to Condominiums

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Insurance Alert: Insurer Delay Extends Time to Repair or Replace Damaged Property

    Construction Industry on the Comeback, But It Won’t Be the Same

    Cutting the Salt Out: Tips for Avoiding Union Salting Charges

    The Roads to Justice: Building New Bridges

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing

    Thank Your Founding Fathers for Mechanic’s Liens

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    A “Flood” of Uncertainty; Massachusetts SJC Finds Policy Term Ambiguous

    Sources of Insurance Recovery for Emerging PFAS Claims

    Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?

    BofA Said to Near Mortgage Deal for Up to $17 Billion

    The Latest News on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

    Beyond Inverse Condemnation in Wildfire Litigation: An Oregon Jury Finds Utility Liable for Negligence, Trespass and Nuisance

    Insured Cannot Sue to Challenge Binding Appraisal Decision

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    A Retrospective As-Built Schedule Analysis Can Be Used to Support Delay

    Coverage Denied for Condominium Managing Agent

    Digitalizing the Construction Site – Interview with Tenderfield’s Jason Kamha

    Global Emissions From Buildings, Construction Climb to Record Levels

    French Laundry Spices Up COVID-19 Business Interruption Debate

    Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

    Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

    Quick Note: Steps to Protect and Avoid the “Misappropriation” of a “Trade Secret”

    SEC Climate Change Disclosure Letter Foreshadows Anticipated Regulatory Changes

    Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

    Florida Condo Collapse Shows Town’s Rich, Middle-Class Divide

    Ohio Supreme Court Case to Decide Whether or Not to Expand Insurance Coverage Under GC’s CGL Insurance Policies

    Recommendations and Drafting Considerations for Construction Contingency Clauses Part III

    Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes Six Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

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

    Plaintiffs’ Claims in Barry v. Weyerhaeuser Company are Likely to Proceed after Initial Hurdle

    Workers Compensation Insurance: Dangers of the Audit Process

    Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    Wall Enclosing Georgia Neighborhood Built for Walking Dead TV Show

    United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in EEOC Subpoena Case

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan
    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

    Florida’s Fourth District Appeals Court Clarifies What Actions Satisfy Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    November 14, 2018 —
    In Gindel v. Centex Homes, 2018 Fla.App. LEXIS 13019, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently concluded that the date on which the plaintiffs provided a pre-suit notice in compliance with §558.004 of Florida’s construction defect Right-to-Cure statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 558.001 to 558.005, et. seq., is the date on which the plaintiff commenced a “civil action or proceeding,” i.e. an “action,” within the meaning of Florida’s construction defect statute of repose, Florida Statue § 95.11(3)(c). Thus, reversing the decision of the trial court, the Fourth District held that the plaintiffs timely-filed their construction defect action against the defendants. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

    Sixth Circuit Affirms Liability Insurer's Broad Duty to Defend and Binds Insurer to Judgment Against Landlord

    September 07, 2020 —
    In a victory for policyholders, the Sixth Circuit affirmed that a landlord’s insurer owed a duty to defend the landlord in a bodily injury claim arising out of a fire that killed three and injured one. The Court held that the insurer breached its duty to defend and was bound to the insured’s $3 million consented judgment. Transition Investments LLC, an owner of three properties in the Detroit area, purchased a general liability insurance policy with Hamilton Specialty Insurance Company to insure its properties. At one of the properties, a faulty stove started a fire, destroying the building, injuring one person and killing three others. The estates of the deceased and the injured party sued Transition in Michigan state court. In their complaint, the plaintiffs contended that Transition failed to provide a habitable premise and neglected to maintain the property’s stove, which allegedly caused the fire. The plaintiffs argued that Transition’s negligent maintenance of the property led to the fire and the resulting injuries. Transition subsequently tendered the claim to Hamilton. Hamilton claimed that the insurance policy did not cover the fire’s damages and refused to participate in the state court litigation. Ultimately, Transitions entered into a consent judgment with the plaintiffs for $3 million. Reprinted courtesy of Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Janie Reilly Eddy, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Pepe may be contacted at mvp@sdvlaw.com Ms. Eddy may be contacted at jre@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims under Kentucky Law

    March 25, 2024 —
    The federal district court determined that the insurer was not obligated to defend construction defect claims under Kentucky law. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222674 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2023). HRB, the owner of an apartment complex, filed an arbitration demand against the general contractor, Doster Commercial Construction, for allegedly doing faulty concrete work in the construction of the apartments. Doster added its concrete subcontrator Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete - and 16 other subcontractors - to the arbitration. Kentuckiana tendered the claim to its insurer, Westfield. Wesfield defended. Doster claimed it was an additional insured under the Westfield policy and also sought coverage. Westfield refused the defend Doster. Westfield argued there was no "occurrence." Westfield then sued both Doster and Kentuckiana in federal court, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend either. Westfield moved for a judgment on the pleadings. 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

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Denies Bad Faith Claim in HO Policy Dispute

    September 24, 2014 —
    According to Patrick Nugent of Saul Ewing LLP’s article in JD Supra Business Advisor, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a summary judgment for the insurer on a statutory bad faith claim in a coverage dispute under a homeowner’s policy. The coverage dispute was over “the collapse of a wall in the plaintiffs’ home.” The Plaintiffs alleged that “the collapse resulted from excessive rainfall during a storm in March 2011.” However, Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s engineer concluded that the collapse “resulted from long-term and on-going water infiltration attributable to poor maintenance.” Water damage had occurred a year prior to the collapse, but had not been repaired. In response, “Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Pennsylvania state court alleging breach of contract and statutory bad faith.” The court “determined that Metropolitan’s denial of benefits ‘was not only reasonable, but correct under the Policy language,’” and “ruled that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that Metropolitan lacked a reasonable basis for denying their claim and entered summary judgment for Metropolitan on the plaintiffs’ bad faith claim.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    February 10, 2012 —

    The San Bernardino office of the California District Attorney is partnering with the California Contractor’s State License Board to check if subcontractors are holding the required workers compensation insurance. The High Desert Daily Press reports that the process of checking at sites has been going on for several months.

    Investigators visit sites and ask supervisors to provide a list of subcontractors which the state then checks for compliance. One worker was quoted that insurance inspections were so rare that he had never seen one before, despite 20 years in construction.

    On one day, investigators in two teams visited fourteen construction sites and reviewed the insurance status of twenty-two firms. Three were found out of compliance and stop work orders were issued.

    Read the full story…

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

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion

    November 18, 2011 —

    Application of the facts to the "your work" exclusion was the key to resolving coverage issued in Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech L.L.C., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21076 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011).

    Ergon Refining, Inc. hired Cat Tech L.L.C. to service a hydrotreating reactor. In January 2005, Cat Tech replaced certain parts in the reactor. After Cat Tech finished the job and left, Ergon noticed a high pressure drop in the reactor, forcing it to be shut down. Cat Tech returned in February 2005, removed, repaired and replaced the damaged parts, and loaded new parts. After completion, a second large pressure drop occurred during the reactor’s start-up process. The reactor was shut down until October 2005, when Ergon hired a different contractor to perform the repair work. Additional damage to the reactor was found.

    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

    Specific Performance of an Option Contract to Purchase Real Property is Barred Absent Agreement on All Material Terms

    December 20, 2017 —
    On November 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals (Division 1), in Offerman v. Granada, LLC, 2017 WL 5352664, reversed a trial court order directing specific performance of an alleged option to purchase real property, holding that the alleged option was too indefinite to be specifically performed because the parties did not agree to all of the material terms of the option. Tenant-Purchaser Offerman executed a two-year lease with Landlord-Seller Granada, which granted Offerman “the option to purchase [the] property…for a sales price to be determined at that time by an independent appraiser acceptable to both Tenant and Landlord. (Terms and Conditions to be stipulated by both parties at such time).” (emphasis added). Offerman timely advised Granada he intended to exercise the option, asked Granada to name an appraiser, and, when Granada did not respond, Offerman tendered a $240,000 appraisal to exercise the option. Granada did not retain an appraiser but instead simply demanded $350,000 to close the sale. After a bench trial, the Court determined that Offerman was entitled to specific performance, and, as the parties had not agreed to certain terms, held a second evidentiary hearing to resolve the form of judgment, therein naming a title agency to handle the escrow, setting a closing date, allocating the transaction fees between the parties, and ordering Granada to pay for the property inspection. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Herold, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Herold may be contacted at rherold@swlaw.com

    Stadium Intended for the 2010 World Cup Still Not Ready

    June 18, 2014 —
    Four years after the HM Pitje Stadium in Pretoria, South Africa was expected to open, the stadium, which was meant to be used during the 2010 World Cup, remains closed. IOL News reported that upgrades began in 2006, “[b]ut since then there have been delays and problems with construction which may see the stands having to be rebuilt.” One of the defects that prevented the stadium from being used for the World Cup was that the slope of the main pavilion was too steep. City of Tshwane spokesman Selby Bokaba told IOL News: “Upgrading of the stadium will take approximately two calendar years, with the completion date reliant on the approval and budget availability.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of