BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering 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


    Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

    “License and Registration, Please.” The Big Risk of Getting Busted for Working without a Proper Contractor’s License

    What ENR.com Construction News Gained the Most Views

    Federal Subcontractor Who Failed to Follow FAR Regulations Finds That “Fair” and “Just” are Not Synonymous

    Bel Air Mansion Construction Draws Community Backlash

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles

    Four Companies Sued in Pool Electrocution Case

    Illinois Appellate Court Addresses Professional Services Exclusion in Homeowners Policy

    Colorado “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Picketing Threats

    Death of Subcontractor’s Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Project Owner

    Contract, Breach of Contract, and Material Breach of Contract

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy

    Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

    Construction Defect Bill a Long Shot in Nevada

    A Deep Dive Into an Undervalued Urban Marvel

    How Artificial Intelligence Can Transform Construction

    New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

    KB Homes Sues Condo Buyers over Alleged Cybersquatting and Hacking

    Unintended Consequences of New Building Products and Services

    Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

    The Construction Industry's Health Kick

    Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues

    Effective Allocation of Damages for Federal Contract Claims

    Subrogation 101 (and Why Should I Care?)

    City Development with Interactive 3D Models

    Top Talked-About Tech at the 2023 ABC Joint Tech Summit

    Louisiana Couple Claims Hurricane Revealed Construction Defects

    Condo Board Goes after Insurer for Construction Defect Settlement

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    Virginia Joins California and Nevada in Passing its Consumer Privacy Act

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

    Veolia Agrees to $25M Settlement in Flint Water Crisis Case

    Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Inverse Condemnation Action

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Kept Climbing in January

    Can Businesses Resolve Construction Disputes Outside of Court?

    Insurer's Daubert Challenge to Insured's Expert Partially Successful

    To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? That is the Question

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Fell in February to Five-Month Low

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Build, Baby, Build. But Not Like This, Britain.

    Mechanics Lien Release Bond – What Happens Now? What exactly is a Mechanics Lien and Why Might it Need to be Released?

    Best Practices After Receiving Notice of a Construction Claim

    Evergrande’s Condemned Towers on China’s Hawaii Show Threat

    California Supreme Court Holds that Design Immunity Does Not Protect a Public Entity for Failure to Warn of Dangerous Conditions

    Massive Redesign Turns Newark Airport Terminal Into a Foodie Theme Park

    Former Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor Disbarred for Taking Bribes

    Fix for Settling Millennium Tower May Start This Fall
    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. Leveraging 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

    Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

    July 01, 2019 —
    A third-party claimant may bring a common law bad faith claim against a defendant’s liability insurer. Mccullough v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, 2019 WL 2076192, *2 (S.D.Fla. 2019). “A bad faith claim may be brought by a third party absent an assignment from the [defendant] insured.” Id. This can only be done in the third-party bad faith context with the argument that the insurer’s “bad faith” conduct resulted in a judgment against the defendant-insured in excess of the policy limits. However, in any third-party bad faith claim (and, really, bad faith claim in general), coverage must first be determined under the policy. 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

    Unesco Denies Claim It Cleared Construction of Zambezi Dam

    November 06, 2023 —
    Unesco denied that it cleared Zimbabwe and Zambia to proceed with the construction of a $5 billion hydropower dam downstream from the Victoria Falls, which it has designated as a World Heritage Site. Munyaradzi Munodawafa, chief executive officer of the Zambezi River Authority, said in an earlier interview that Unesco’s World Heritage Committee “agreed that Batoka could go ahead,” referring to the planned dam and 2,400-megawatt power plant on the Zambezi River. Munodawafa didn’t answer calls or text messages to his mobile phone. “The decision taken by the committee raises several concerns regarding the site, including the inevitable negative impacts of the Batoka Gorge” project, Unesco said in a response to queries. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Antony Sguazzin, Bloomberg

    Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

    February 19, 2019 —
    The Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision yesterday finding no coverage for fire damage to a building is a cautionary tale for companies acquiring other companies. Erie Ins. Exch. v. EPC MD 15, LLC, 2019 WL 238168 (Va. Jan. 17, 2019). In that case, Erie Insurance issued a property insurance policy to EPC. The policy covered EPC only and did not cover any subsidiaries of EPC. EPC then acquired the sole member interest in Cyrus Square, LLC. Following the acquisition, fire damaged a building that Cyrus Square owned. EPC sought coverage under its property insurance policy. Because the policy did not cover Cyrus Square, EPC argued that a provision extending coverage to “newly acquired buildings” applied, contending that EPC had newly acquired Cyrus Square’s building by virtue of becoming the sole member interest in the LLC. Based on the law relative to LLCs and its interpretation of the policy, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled against EPC. It found that although EPC had acquired Cyrus Square, it had not “newly acquired” the building and so the “newly acquired buildings” coverage extension did not apply. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    March 27, 2019 —
    In what the Court of Appeals describes as “the infamous government-created environmental disaster known at the Flint Water Crisis,” a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that some of the government personnel responsible for this disaster may be liable, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for monetary damages based on the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The case is Guertin, et al., v. State of Michigan, et al., decided on January 4, 2019. On April 25, 2014, the City of Flint, MI, facing a financial crisis, agreed to switch its drinking water supply from the water provided by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department to untreated water available from the Flint River that would be treated in the waterworks owned and operated by the City. However, the City waterworks could not provide the needed treatment, which resulted in the corrosive Flint River water leaching lead out of the old Flint water pipes. Soon thereafter, a public health and environmental crisis enveloped Flint. Many lawsuits have been filed against many defendants, and many civil and criminal investigations have been opened. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    August 17, 2011 —

    The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for Louisiana has reversed the summary judgment of a lower court in the case of Widder v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. Judge Roland L. Belsome wrote the opinion for the panel of three judges. Ms. Widder discovered that her home and its content were contaminated by lead. She applied to her insurer, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance, which denied her claim.

    In response to Ms. Widder’s suit, LCPIC applied for a summary judgment on the grounds that there was no physical loss and that the policy did not cover defective material, latents defects, and pollution damage.

    The appeals court found that the lead contamination of Widder’s home did meet the standards of a direct physical loss, citing a recent Chinese Drywall case. There, it was found, “when a home has been rendered unusable or uninhabitable, physical damage is not necessary.”

    The lower court addressed only one of LCPIC’s exclusions, addressing only the exclusion on basis of “faulty, inadequate or defective material.” The appeals court noted that the evidence offered at trial does not show that the building materials were the source of the lead. This provided the appeals court with a matter of fact to remand to the lower court.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Endorsements Preclude Coverage for Alleged Faulty Workmanship

    December 30, 2019 —
    The court found coverage for alleged faulty workmanship was barred by the Combination Construction Related Endorsement and Roofing Endorsement. Evanston Ins. Co. v. A&S Roofing, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142828 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 22, 2019). In 2010, A&S entered into a subcontract with the contractor to replace roofs on three buildings owned by Oklahoma Property Investors (OPI). Eagle was a subcontractor of A&S that installed the roofing. After the roofs were replaced, OPI filed suit against A&S, alleging that A&S provided 15-year warranties for the roofing work performed on the three buildings and that A&S breached each warranty by performing the work in a poor manner, resulting in failures to each of the roofs. OPI sought monetary relief including damages to its properties, of its tenants, and costs of repairs to its properties. A&S's insurer, Evanston, denied coverage. Evanston pointed to the"legally obligated to pay" language of the CGL policy and argued coverage only extended to tort-based claims. Evanston argued the OPI lawsuit did not allege any tort claims, only warranty claims arising from contract. Second, Evanston contended the alleged "poor craftsmanship" giving rise to the claims in the OPI lawsuit that did not constitute an "occurrence" under the policy. 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

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stop - In the Name of the Law!”

    August 07, 2023 —
    In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court settled a split among the federal appellate circuits on whether appeal of a district court refusal to compel arbitration stays the underlying litigation in the district court. Having been denied relief by the district court on its motion to compel arbitration, plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §16(a), which authorizes an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff asked the district court to stay its proceedings pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal. The district court refused, and the Ninth Circuit also declined to stay the lower court proceedings pending appeal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Bank Window Lawsuit Settles Quietly

    October 02, 2013 —
    The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has filed a motion to dismiss its breach of contract lawsuit over the windows McCarthy Building installed in the bank’s building. The bank alleged that the 498 windows were defective and needed to be replaced at a cost of about $1.5 million. But on September 11, the bank acted to dismiss the suit following a settlement with the defendants. The terms of the settlement was not disclosed. All parties will be covering their own legal costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of