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


    Single-Family Home Gain Brightens U.S. Housing Outlook: Economy

    Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

    SE 2050 Is In Quixotic Pursuit of Eliminating Embodied Carbon in Building Structures

    What You Need to Know About Notices of Completion, Cessation and Non-Responsibility

    Fall 2024 Legislative Update:

    State Farm to Build Multi-Use Complex in Dallas Area

    Subrogation 101 (and Why Should I Care?)

    The Legal Landscape

    Washington Court Limits Lien Rights of Construction Managers

    Court Addresses HOA Attempt to Restrict Short Term Rentals

    Wheaton to Require Sprinklers in New Homes

    An Interesting Look at Mechanic’s Lien Priority and Necessary Parties

    Coverage Denied for Faulty Blasting and Improper Fill

    “Freelance Isn’t Free” New Regulations Adopted in New York City Requiring Written Contracts with Independent Contractors

    John Paulson’s $1 Billion Caribbean Empire Faces Betrayal

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

    Application Of Two Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-For-Delay And Liquidated Damages

    Expect the Unexpected (Your Design Contracts in a Post-COVID World)

    Additional Insured Secures Defense Under Subcontractor's Policy

    Client Alert: Naming of Known and Unknown Defendants in Initial Complaints: A Cautionary Tale

    Crossrail Audit Blames Busted Budget and Schedule on Mismanagement

    ABC Safety Report: Construction Companies Can Be Nearly 6 Times Safer Than the Industry Average Through Best Practices

    Manhattan Townhouse Sells for a Record $79.5 Million

    Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    New FAR Rule Mandates the Use of PLAs on Large Construction Projects

    Kaboom! Illinois Applies the Anti-Subrogation Rule to Require a Landlord’s Subrogating Property Insurer to Defend a Third-Party Complaint Against Tenants

    Submitting Claims on Government Projects Can Be Tricky

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

    Get Construction Defects in Writing

    CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Related Remedies – 2014 Update

    The Independent Tort Doctrine (And Its Importance)

    The Economic Loss Rule: From Where Does the Duty Arise?

    Caltrans to Speak before California Senate regarding Bay Bridge Expansion

    Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act

    Home-Sales Fall in 2014 Has U.S. Waiting for 2015: Economy

    Construction Defects and Second Buyers in Pennsylvania

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Rules General Contractors Can Contractually Subordinate Mechanics Lien Rights

    No Indemnity After Insured Settles Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Claims

    Foreclosing Junior Lienholders and Recording A Lis Pendens

    Home Numbers Remain Small While Homes Get Bigger

    SFAA Commends Congress for Maintaining Current Bonding Protection Levels in National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

    Civility Is Key in Construction Defect Mediation

    Caltrans Reviewing Airspace Program in Aftermath of I-10 Fire

    District Court denies Carpenters Union Motion to Dismiss RICO case- What it Means

    2021 Executive Insights: Leaders in Construction Law

    Engineering, Architecture, and Modern Technology – An Interview with Dr. Jakob Strømann-Andersen

    Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Hunton Insurance Recovery Partner Michael Levine Quoted on Why Courts Must Consider the Science of COVID-19

    Social Engineering Scams Are On the Rise – Do I Have Insurance Coverage for That?
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.

    February 14, 2023 —
    This article was first published by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on their NAHBNow blog One of the risks faced by a residential builder is that, following completion of construction, the homeowner may assert a claim against the builder for damage to the home caused by an alleged construction defect. One of the ways a builder manages the risk of such construction defect claims is by purchasing commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance. A builder’s CGL policy covers those sums the builder is legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an “occurrence,” that is, damage that is accidental rather than being expected or intended by the builder, so long as the claim does not fall within any of the policy’s several “exclusions” from coverage. When faced with a construction defect lawsuit, our builder clients are often surprised—and dismayed—when their CGL insurer denies coverage and refuses to defend the builder. However, builders shouldn’t take their insurer’s denial of coverage at face value. This article discusses a new argument we recently discovered that has been a game-changer for our builder clients who were denied coverage in construction defect cases. Whether coverage exists always depends on the specific language of the particular CGL policy, and courts generally construe exclusions against insurers. This allows experienced coverage attorneys to, at times, successfully challenge declinations of coverage and, at a minimum, convince insurers to pay for the builder’s defense. A typical CGL policy provides products-completed operations coverage, which is sought by businesses that face potential liability arising out of the products that they have sold or operations that they have completed. Products-completed operations coverage allows builders to obtain many years of coverage for a completed project. Over the years, insurers have added to their policies modifications and exclusions that limit their exposure for claims that fall under that coverage. Exclusion (l) or the “your work” exclusion, will often exclude coverage for a latent defect claim against the builder. A standard “your work” exclusion provides:
    This insurance does not apply to: . . . “[p]roperty damage” to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products-completed operations hazard.”
    This “your work” and similar exclusions are designed to limit coverage for business risks that are within the contractor’s own control; e.g., a claim that the contractor caused damage to the contractor’s own work. These exclusions apply both to ongoing and completed projects, which can leave a builder unprotected from lawsuits for years after a project is completed. However, builders who are classified on the declarations page with Code 91580 Contractors— Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents, may not be subject to the “your work” exclusion. 91580 is a common classification assigned to builders during insurance underwriting. This classification falls into what is referred to as “dagger class” or “plus sign class,” which indicates that Products and/or Completed Operations coverage is included as part of and not separate from the Premises/Operations coverage (emphasis added). It has been noted that dagger” and “plus sign” classifications create confusion because of the seeming contradiction between policy wording and coverage rules.* The CGL policy seems to expressly exclude products and/or completed operations losses for “dagger” or “plus sign” classes. In the definitions section we find the following:
    “Products-completed operations hazard”: . . .b. Does not Include “bodily Injury” or “property damage” arising out of:. . . (3) Products or operations for which the classification, listed In the Declarations or in a policy schedule, states that products- completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit.”
    This apparent exclusionary language, however, must be read in conjunction with the Insurance Services Office’s (ISO) Rule 25.F.1.:
    Rule 25. CLASSIFICATIONS F. Symbols 1. Plus Sign A plus sign when shown in the Premium Base column under General Liability insurance in the Classification Table - means that coverage for Products and/or Completed Operations is included in the Premises/Operations coverage at no additional premium charge. When this situation applies, the classification described in the policy schedule or Declarations must state that: “Products-completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit” to provide Products and/or Completed Operations coverage(s).
    When read together then, the exclusionary wording in the policy definition removes any product or operation loss subject to the “dagger” or “plus sign” classification from the definition of Products Completed Operations Hazard. Under the dagger or plus sign classification of Rule 25, coverage for products and/or operations is included in the premises operations coverage. Consequently, a loss can no longer be defined as a product completed loss, and as a result it is no longer subject to the “your work” exclusion. Recall that the standard “your work” exclusion quoted above excludes coverage for “property damage” to “your work” “arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products-completed operations hazard”.” Here, we emphasize “and” because the “your work” exclusion applies only to property damage that is also included in the “products-completed operations hazard.” Since property damage claims arising under “plus sign” classifications are expressly excluded from the “products-completed operations hazard” (they are included in the premises/operations coverage) the “your work” exclusion simply does not apply. This means that, if your CGL insurer denies your construction defect claim based on the “your work” exclusion, do what the title of this article suggests: Check your ISO classification! If 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents” is listed on your Declarations page, you may be in luck. This new ISO classification-based coverage argument will likely also apply to other exclusions and endorsements that CGL insurers routinely rely on in denying coverage in construction defect cases. We recently successfully challenged a coverage denial based on the following “prior work” exclusionary endorsement:
    ”This insurance does not apply to ‘your products’ or ‘your work’ completed prior to” a certain date listed in the endorsement. . . “Specifically, this insurance does not apply to. . . “property damage”. . . included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard’ and arising out of. . . ‘your work’ performed by or on behalf of you prior to the date shown above.”
    Again, this endorsement incorporates the “products-completed operations hazard,” which allowed us to successfully argue that the exclusion was inapplicable to a builder classified as a 91580 “Executive Supervisor or Executive Superintendent.” To our knowledge, this new ISO classification-based coverage argument has not yet been addressed by a court. Our recent successes with it have concluded with favorable settlements for our clients. Accordingly, for now, the ISO classification-based argument is a powerful new tool to challenge denials of coverage in construction defect cases where the builder is classified under 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents.” David Humphreys is a Partner at Carson Law Group, PLLC, and has been representing construction contractors, subcontractors, and owners for more than two decades in Mississippi and throughout the Southeast. *See “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean, Chris Boggs - Virtual University | “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean) (independentagent.com) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market

    October 22, 2013 —
    Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. Claimed in a hearing at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that when they sold about $8.5 million of contaminated drywall to Venture Supply Inc. of Virginia, that they had no awareness that the drywall would be sold in the United States. Joe Cyr, an attorney for Taisan told the court that “Venture Supply never said it was going to distribute the goods in Virginia.” One of the judges on the three-judge panel, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, was skeptical of Taishan’s claim, asking, “it was packed and labeled for the Virginia market, isn’t that correct?” When asked by a judge if Taishan was trying to avoid accountability, Cyr said that Tiashan “has not said that it doesn’t want to be accountable for its drywall.” Taishan holds the position that claims against it should be arbitrated in the People’s Republic of China. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    $109-Million Renovation Begins on LA's Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station

    October 02, 2018 —
    The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), along with the Los Angeles office of Stantec, recently began work on the $109-million Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station Improvement Project in Los Angeles. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Aragon, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    City of Pawtucket Considering Forensic Investigation of Tower

    October 08, 2014 —
    Pawtucket, Rhode Island’s mayor, Donald Grebien, has asked their city council to approve “a forensic investigation of the Pawtucket City Hall tower to determine whether the city should sue the contractor that repaired it eight years ago,” the Valley Breeze reported. Back in 2011, “city officials had been unable to locate a signed contract for the tower project as they sought to hold NER responsible for continued leaking into the structure just five years after the company's $3 million renovation project was complete,” according to the Valley Breeze. “The costs of that project grew to $4.6 million once interest was factored in.” Documents have recently been discovered that Grebien believes may open the possibility to sue NER. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Investigators Eye Fiber Optic Work in Deadly Wisconsin Explosion

    July 18, 2018 —
    A hole punched into a 4-in.-dia gas pipeline during fiber-optic line laying is blamed for an explosion that killed a 34-year-old fire captain and injured nine other people, including four firefighters, in downtown Sun Prairie, Wis., on July 10. The injured were treated at nearby hospitals and have since been released. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, ENR
    Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com

    Mandatory Arbitration Isn’t All Bad, if. . .

    August 13, 2019 —
    In the past week or so mandatory arbitration has been all the rage. From those that argue that arbitration is becoming more burdensome than litigation, to my friend and fellow construction attorney Scott Wolfe who gives great advice on how to make arbitration worth it again. You can place me in the camp of those that think that mandatory arbitration clauses of the type typically found in contracts can add a layer of expense that can be unnecessary. However, if an arbitration clause is carefully drafted, and properly used, these clauses an be helpful in assuring that the streamlining effect for which arbitration was created actually occurs. Because the contract is king in Virginia, these provisions can essentially create the rule of civil procedure used to resolve any dispute relating to the project. Anything from the number and method of appointing the arbitrators, to the ability to use attorneys, to the time between notice and arbitration hearing and whether mediation is a requirement, to the documents and other pre-arbitration exchanges can and should be specifically outlined. The construction contract can also state who decides between court or arbitration. This can be one party or both. The possibilities are almost endless. 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

    China Bans Tallest Skyscrapers Following Safety Concerns

    July 25, 2021 —
    China is prohibiting construction of the tallest skyscrapers to ensure safety following mounting concerns over the quality of some projects. The outright ban covers buildings that are taller than 500 meters (1,640 feet), the National Development and Reform Commission said in a notice Tuesday. Local authorities will also need to strictly limit building of towers that are more than 250 meters tall. The top economic planner cited quality problems and safety hazards in some developments stemming from loose oversight. A 72-story tower in Shenzhen was closed in May for checks following reports of unexplained wobbling, feeding concern about the stability of one of the technology hub’s tallest buildings. Construction of buildings exceeding 100 meters should strictly match the scale of the city where they will be located, along with its fire rescue capability, the commission said. “It’s primarily for safety,” said Qiao Shitong, an associate law professor at the University of Hong Kong who studies property and urban law. Extremely tall buildings “are more like signature projects for mayors and not necessarily efficient.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Rescission of Policy for Misrepresentation in Application Reversed

    August 17, 2017 —
    The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's issuance of summary judgment to the insurer, finding that the insured did not make misrepresentations when applying for a policy to cover rental property. Duarte v. Pacific Spec. Ins. Co., 13 Cal. App. 5th 45 (2017). Duarte rented his house to Jennifer Pleasants. Duarte gave her a 45-day notice to quit in February 2012, but she did not leave. Two months later, Duarte applied for landlord-tenant coverage with Pacific. The application was submitted electronically and Pacific issued a policy to Durate the same day. In June 2012, Pleasants filed a lawsuit against Duarte, alleging ten causes of action arising from habitability defects which began in 2009. The suit claimed Pleasants had notified Duarte about the defects, she had suffered emotional distress and physical injury, and over paid rent, and had out-of-pocket expenses. 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