BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultant
    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


    No Coverage for Home Damaged by Falling Boulders

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    Deterioration Known To Insured Forecloses Collapse Coverage

    UK Agency Seeks Stricter Punishments for Illegal Wastewater Discharges

    Law Firm Fails to Survive Insurer's and Agent's Motions to Dismiss

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial

    Full Extent of Damage From Turkey Quakes Takes Shape

    Defining a Property Management Agreement

    District of Oregon Predicts Oregon’s Place in “Plain Meaning” Pollution Camp

    Delay In Noticing Insurer of Loss is Not Prejudicial

    Ohio Condo Owners Sue Builder, Alleging Construction Defects

    When Does a Contractor Legally Abandon a Construction Project?

    Measure Of Damages for Breach of Construction Contract

    Arctic Fires Are Melting Permafrost That Keeps Carbon Underground

    Contractor Prevails on Summary Judgment To Establish Coverage under Subcontractor's Policy

    WSHB Ranks No.10 in Law360’s Best of Law Firms for Women

    A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

    Insurer Must Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

    California Supreme Court Shifts Gears on “Reverse CEQA”

    No Jail Time for Disbarred Construction Defect Lawyer

    Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

    Taking Service Network Planning to the Next Level

    Update: Lawyers Can Be Bound to Confidentiality Provision in Settlement Agreement

    Substantial Completion Explained: What Contractors & Owners Should Know

    Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Recover Before Insured Is Made Whole

    It’s a COVID-19 Pandemic; It’s Everywhere – New Cal. Bill to Make Insurers Prove Otherwise

    California Court of Appeal Makes Short Work Trial Court Order Preventing Party From Supplementing Experts

    Water Intrusion Judged Not Related to Construction

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    ARUP, Rethinking Green Infrastructure

    Construction of New U.S. Homes Declines on Plunge in South

    Issue and Claim Preclusion When Forced to Litigate Similar Issues in Different Forums: White River Village, LLP v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland

    What’s in a Name? Trademarks and Construction

    Good Signs for Housing Market in 2013

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

    Changes in the Law on Lien Waivers

    16 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2021 Top Lawyers!

    Death of Subcontractor’s Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Project Owner

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Faster Pace in January

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    Actual Cost Value Includes Depreciation of Repair Labor Costs

    Drafting or Negotiating A Subcontract–Questions To Consider

    Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Against Contractor and Performance Bond Surety on Contractor's Differing Site Conditions Claim

    Fewer NYC Construction Deaths as Safety Law Awaits Governor's Signature

    Despite Feds' Raised Bar, 2.8B Massachusetts Offshore Wind Project Presses On

    Kumagai Drops Most in 4 Months on Building Defect: Tokyo Mover

    Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy
    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

    Is the Event You Are Claiming as Unforeseeable Delay Really Unforeseeable?

    September 26, 2022 —
    Is the item or event you are claiming as an unforeseeable, excusable delay really unforeseeable? This is not a trick question. Just because your construction contract identifies items or events that constitute unforeseeable, excusable delay does not mean those items can be used as a blanket excuse or crutch for the contractor. That would be unfair. For instance, it is not uncommon for a construction contract to list as unforeseeable, excusable delay the following events or items: “(i) acts of God or of the public enemy, (ii) act of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, (iii) acts of another Contractor in the performance of a contract with the Government, (iv) fires, (v) floods, (vi) epidemics, (vii) quarantine restrictions, (viii) strikes, (ix) freight embargoes, (x) unusually severe weather, or (xi) delays of subcontractors or suppliers at any tier arising from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of both the Contractor and the subcontractors or suppliers.” See, e.g., F.A.R. 52.249-10(b)(1). While the itemization of excusable delay may be worded differently, the point is there may be a listing as to what items or events constitute excusable delay. An excusable delay would justify additional time and, potentially, compensation to the contractor. 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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant

    April 19, 2021 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle obtained summary judgment in favor of defendant SRI Fire Sprinkler, LLC, a family-owned and operated fire sprinkler company which generally provides fire sprinkler installation, inspection, and maintenance services throughout the Northeast and New England. The judgment was determined pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the grounds that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company’s (Plaintiff) negligent construction claim accrued on the date when work was completed at the premises, not on the date of the incident as alleged in the Plaintiff’s complaint. In the underlying subrogation action, the Plaintiff commenced the action in subrogation of its insured, Bet Am Shalom Synagogue (Bet Am), to recover damages in excess of $173,390.86 which it allegedly paid to Bet Am for water damage cleanup and remodeling after certain sprinkler pipes froze and burst in the recently constructed wing of the Westchester synagogue on January 1, 2019 and January 7, 2019. The Plaintiff alleged that its subrogor, Bet Am, sustained interior water damage on the first floor and basement levels of the premises, including the carpets, drywall, insulation, bathroom, kitchen and appliances, dining room, hallways, closets, basement storage rooms and supplies, and basement classrooms. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
    Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

    Property Owner’s Defense Goes Up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case

    September 23, 2019 —
    Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to neighboring properties. When a property owner knows or should know about a condition that poses a risk of danger to neighboring properties, the property owner must exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently held that, where hundreds of discarded cigarette butts had accumulated in a bed of mulch over an extended period of time prior to the fire at issue, the owner of the property with the mulch beds owed a duty of care to its neighbors to prevent a foreseeable fire. In Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 430 (May 30, 2019), a fire originated in a strip of mulch at property owned by the Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 (Union) and caused damage to neighboring properties. The fire occurred when an unknown person discarded a cigarette butt into the mulch. Following the fire, investigators found “hundreds, if not thousands of cigarettes” in the mulch where the fire originated. A representative for the Union acknowledged that there were more butts in the mulch “than there should have been” and that, “[i]n the right situation,” a carelessly discarded cigarette could cause a fire. The Union, however, had no rules or signs to prohibit or regulate smoking at the property, where apprentices would often gather prior to class. The insurance companies for the damaged neighbors filed subrogation actions alleging that the Union, as the property owner, failed to use reasonable care to prevent a foreseeable fire. A jury found in favor of the subrogating insurers and against the Union. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

    Although Property Damage Arises From An Occurrence, Coverage Barred By Business Risk Exclusions

    July 08, 2011 —

    The homeowners hired the insured to raise the structure of their home twenty-four inches above the flood zone. Lafayette Ins. Co. v. Peerboom, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58985 (S.D. Miss. June 2, 2011). When the insured’s crew returned from lunch one day, they found the house had fallen from hydraulic jacks being used to raise the structure a few inches at a time. There was substantial damage to the entire structure.

    The homeowners sued, asserting several claims, including negligence and breach of contract. The complaint alleged the homeowners entered a contract with the insured to raise their structure while maintaining its integrity. However, the insured failed to use proper equipment, which caused the house to fall and be completely destroyed.

    The insured tendered the claim to its insurer, Lafayette Insurance Company. Lafayette defended under a reservation of rights and filed suit for a declaratory judgment. Lafayette’s subsequent motion for summary judgment contended there was no “occurrence” alleged in the underlying complaint and, even if there was, the business risk exclusions barred coverage.

    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

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

    August 29, 2022 —
    While I have not performed exhaustive research into the origin of anti-concurrent causation (“ACC”) endorsements on insurance policies, or how or when they migrated from first-party property policies to commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies, they have done so. The result for Colorado’s construction professionals may rear its ugly head as an unwelcome and surprise outright declination of coverage for construction defect claims. ACC endorsements state that if there are two causes of damage: one of which is covered by a policy and one of which is not, the carrier can invoke the ACC endorsement to disclaim coverage for all of the damage. An exemplar ACC endorsement is ISO Form CG 21 67, entitled “Fungi or Bacteria Exclusion.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    What Happens When Dave Chappelle Buys Up Your Town

    June 05, 2023 —
    America’s most reclusive comedian isn’t hard to find. Dave Chappelle hangs around downtown, buys coffee and shops like any other resident of Yellow Springs, Ohio. He smokes cigarettes and chats with passersby. He knows people, and they know him. Yellow Springs is a special place. “Growing up here, literally on any given Saturday or Sunday, in any house that you walked into, there was going to be someone who was Jewish, someone who was an atheist, someone from a different country, somebody who was a person of color,” says Carmen Brown, a Black village council member whose family has lived in the town for 150 years. “There was going to be a clown, an astrophysicist, a janitor and a doctor—all hanging out.” Chappelle is a product of this environment, this culture of “discourse without discord,” she says. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Smart Contracts Poised to Impact the Future of Construction

    November 12, 2019 —
    In August 2018, the State of Ohio passed legislation making it easier for businesses in Ohio, including the construction industry, to use blockchain technology in business transactions, which can result in significant savings and increased efficiency if used correctly. Specifically, Senate Bill 220 amends the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Ohio Rev. Code. 1306.01, et seq.) and ensures that records (or signatures) secured through blockchain are legally binding. With the enactment of this bill, Ohio has joined several other states to allow their businesses to take advantage of this budding technology. While the implications of this enactment are widespread, the use of “smart contracts” utilizing blockchain technology is particularly helpful in the construction industry to streamline certain processes and increase efficiency. What is Blockchain? While blockchain technology is most commonly associated with cryptocurrency (e.g., Bitcoin), the technology has far greater applications as it can be used to “eliminate the middle-man” in a variety of transactions across a broad spectrum of industries. At its core, blockchain is a decentralized ledger that allows transacting parties to interact directly (i.e., peer-to-peer) in a secure manner. Essentially, the blockchain “ledger” is where users record transactions. These transactions are then verified, viewed, and shared with others in the network. The information is stored across a peer network and allows for approved users to view the data simultaneously. It is often analogized to using GoogleDocs, where multiple people can access and edit the same document simultaneously. While that is an easy comparison, blockchain itself is a bit more complex. Reprinted courtesy of Frederick D. Cruz & Seth Wamelink, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Cruz may be contacted at frederick.cruz@tuckerellis.com Mr. Wamelink may be contacted at seth.wamelink@tuckerellis.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurers Refuse Indemnification of Subcontractors in Construction Defect Suit

    November 13, 2013 —
    SMG Stone Co. Inc. and J. Colavin & Son Inc. were hired by Webcor Construction LP to install stone floor tiles at the Ritz-Carlton residences at the L.A. Live complex in Los Angeles. But the tiles began to crack even before installation was finished. The building management had all the tiles ripped out and replaced, although only 10% of the tiles were defective. The building management then claimed Webcor owed them $40 million, but settled for $8 million. $7 million of that claim was paid by Steadfast Insurance Co., with the remaining $1 million paid by Webcor. The two other insurers involved, American Home and The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, are attempting to deflect Webcor or Steadfast from making claims against them. Both insurers claim no obligation to indemnify the contractor or subcontractors as the claims do not involved “property damage,” as defined in the policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of