BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling 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


    A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species and Deliberative Process Privilege

    Tishman Construction Admits Cheating Trade Center Clients

    Form Contracts are Great, but. . .

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    Surety Trends to Keep an Eye on in the Construction Industry

    Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 – Expert Testimony

    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

    We Knew Concrete Could Absorb Carbon—New Study Tells How Much

    Navigating the Construction Burrito: OCIP Policies in California’s Construction Defect Cases

    Court Dismisses Coverage Action In Lieu of Pending State Case

    New Hampshire Applies Crete/Sutton Doctrine to Bar Subrogation Against College Dormitory Residents

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    Construction Law Firm Welin, O'Shaughnessy + Scheaf Merging with McDonald Hopkins LLC

    Lightstone Committing $2 Billion to Hotel Projects

    Trends and Issues which Can Affect Workers' Compensation Coverage for Construction Companies

    A Year After Fatal Genoa Viaduct Collapse, Replacement Takes Shape

    How to Drop a New Building on Top of an Old One

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2022 “Atlanta 500” List

    Mind Over Matter: Court Finds Expert Opinion Based on NFPA 921 Reliable Despite Absence of Physical Testing

    Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2022 Top Lawyers!

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract is Only as Good as Those Signing It

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle and Vito John Marzano Secure Dismissal of Indemnification and Breach of Contract Claims Asserted against Subcontractor

    COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

    Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Supreme Court Says “Stay”

    Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

    Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    The Utility of Arbitration Agreements in the Construction Industry

    Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Strikes a Deathblow to Substantial Factor Causation in Most Cases; Is Asbestos Litigation Next?

    Wood Wizardry in Oregon: Innovation Raises the Roof for PDX Terminal

    Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

    The G2G Year in Review: 2020

    An Obligation to Provide Notice and an Opportunity to Cure May not End after Termination, and Why an Early Offer of Settlement Should Be Considered on Public Works Contracts

    Navigating the New Landscape: How AB 12 and SB 567 Impact Landlords and Tenants in California

    Effective Strategies for Reinforcing Safety Into Evolving Design Standards

    California Assembly Bill Proposes an End to Ten Year Statute of Repose

    The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction

    Steel-Fiber Concrete Link Beams Perform Well in Tests

    Agrihoods: The Best of Both Worlds

    Colorado homebuilders target low-income buyers with bogus "affordable housing" bill

    Is the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative Act

    Three lawyers from Haight were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition

    Senior Living Facility Makes Construction Defect Claims

    No Coverage for Repairs Made Before Suit Filed

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Secured by Lewis Brisbois in Coverage Dispute Involving San Francisco 49ers’ Levi Stadium

    How AI and Machine Learning Are Helping Construction Reduce Risk and Improve Margins

    Deterioration Known To Insured Forecloses Collapse Coverage

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    Pennsylvania Reconstruction Project Beset by Problems

    Deadline Nears for “Green Performance Bond” Implementation
    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

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    January 06, 2012 —

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in the case of American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co. Several other insurance companies were party to this case. In the earlier case, the US District Court of Appeals for Arizona had granted a summary judgment to Ohio Casualty Group and National Fire & Marine Insurance Company. At the heart of it, is a dispute over construction defect coverage.

    The general contractor for Astragal Luxury Villas, GFTDC, contracted with American Family to provide it with a commercial liability policy. Coverage was issued to various subcontractors by Ohio Casualty and National Fire. These policies included blanket additional insured endorsements that provided coverage to GFTDC. The subcontractor policies had provisions making their coverage excess over other policies available to GFTDC.

    The need for insurance was triggered when the Astragal Condominium Unit Owners Association filed a construction defect claim in the Arizona Superior Court. CFTDC filed a third-party claim against several subcontractors. The case was settled with American Family paying the settlement, after which it filed seeking reimbursement from the subcontractor’s insurers. The court instead granted summary judgment in favor of Ohio Casualty and National Fire.

    American Family appealed to the Ninth Circuit for a review of the summary judgment, arguing that the “other insurance” clauses were “mutually repugnant and unenforceable.” The Ninth Circuit cited a case from the Arizona Court of Appeals that held that “where two policies cover the same occurrence and both contain ‘other insurance’ clauses, the excess insurance provisions are mutually repugnant and must be disregarded. Each insurer is then liable for a pro rate share of the settlement or judgment.”

    The court noted that unlike other “other insurance” cases, the American Family policy “states that it provides primary CGL coverage for CFTDC and is rendered excess only if there is ‘any other primary insurance’ available to GFTDC as an additional insured.” They note that “the American Family policy purports to convert from primary to excess coverage only if CFTDC has access to other primary insurance as an additional insured.”

    In comparison, the court noted that “the ‘other insurance’ language in Ohio Casualty’s additional insured endorsement cannot reasonably be read to contradict, or otherwise be inconsistent with, the ‘other primary insurance’ provision in the American Family policy.” They find other reasons why National Fire’s coverage did not supersede American Family’s. In this case, the policy is “written explicitly to apply in excess.”

    Finally, the Astragal settlement did not exhaust American Family’s coverage, so they were obligated to pay out the full amount. The court upheld the summary dismissal of American Family’s claims.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

    January 15, 2014 —
    The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that a duty to defend was owed St. Bernard Parish after it was sued for condemning and demolishing housing destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Lexington Ins. Co. v. St. Bernard Parish Gov't, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24292 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2013). St. Bernard's policies with Lexington provided coverage for "property damage" and "personal and advertising injury." The policies included a $10,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate limit, subject to a $250,000 retained limit. Lexington denied coverage and filed for a declaratory judgment that the policies' $250,000 retained limit applied separately to each alleged demolition or property damage asserted in the underlying actions. Under this theory, no defense would be owed because no property had a value exceeding $250,000. The District Court found that only one retained limit applied. 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

    WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals

    June 15, 2017 —
    A drastic change has been implemented by the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) Program in Washington. Effective June 1, 2017, WSDOT has implemented a “waiver” to exclude women-owned DBEs[i] from qualifying toward Condition of Award (“COA”) Goals on federally-funded projects. This move is significant. It will likely result in long-lasting detrimental impacts on the DBE community, women-owned businesses, and the entire construction community in Washington. The construction industry should be in an uproar over this change. Instead, it has largely gone unnoticed (likely because its impacts have not yet been felt). It is a de facto exclusion of women-owned businesses from the DBE program, and the severity of this change cannot be overstated. Under the waiver, women-owned businesses no longer satisfy COA Goals on federally-funded projects (i.e., projects receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration) advertised after June 1, 2017. Existing contracts are not impacted and may continue to utilize women-owned DBEs to satisfy COA Goals until the project is complete. The waiver is not retroactive. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Ms. Perka may be contacted at eperka@ac-lawyers.com

    Long-Planned Miami Mega Mixed-Use Development Nears Initial Debut

    September 25, 2018 —
    Economic crises, lawsuits and other complications have thrown multiple wrenches into plans for downtown Miami’s massive Worldcenter mixed-use project over the past 12 years. But to hear the master development group’s managing principal Nitin Motwani tell it, the timing for the $2-billion “city within a city” to finally come to fruition couldn’t be better. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar

    May 01, 2015 —
    In just two weeks, the 22nd West Coast Casualty (WCC) Construction Defect Seminar returns to the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim, California. The annual event begins on Thursday, May 14th, with breakfast and registration starting at 7:30am. Panel discussions on various construction defect related topics begin at 8:30am and continue through the morning and afternoon, followed by a cocktail reception in the early evening. The following day includes break-out sessions with the event concluding in the afternoon. Attendees can enhance their seminar experience with the WCC Construction Defect Seminar Mobile App. The event schedule, speaker information, product information, sponsor details, and interactive floorplan can all be accessed through the app. Furthermore, registered attendees will have access to session presentations. The designated charity for this years’ event is the Wounded Warrior Project and there are several ways for attendees to support this honorable cause. In addition to the opportunity to purchase a “Buy A Banner” to hang in the seminar hall, there will be a traditional raffle for two American Themed quilts donated by Marianne Cutcher. Bert L. Howe and Associates, Inc. has also stepped up to support Wounded Warriors, and attendees will get the chance to help raise money for this cause in the following manner:
    If you stop by the Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) booth at the seminar and try their “Sink A Putt For Charity” not only will you have the chance to win a $25 Best Buy gift card, but you’ll also have the opportunity to help raise funds for Wounded Warriors. For every hole-in-one made at their booth, BHA will also make a $25.00 cash donation in the golfer’s name to the Wounded Warrior Project. BHA strongly supports the goals and principles of Wounded Warriors, and is honored to assist the organization in fulfilling its mandate of assisting our returning military heroes who are in need.
    Download an invitation and register for WCC Seminar... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Requirement to Post Collateral Under General Agreement of Indemnity Is Real

    May 16, 2022 —
    In prior postings, I have discussed the all-powerful General Agreement of Indemnity (click here and here). This is the document a bond-principal executes to obtain bonds (e.g., performance and payment bonds). Not only does the bond-principal execute this General Agreement of Indemnity, but typically, so do other indemnitors such as the company’s principals and their spouses, other related companies, etc. The objective is that the surety has financial comfort that if a claim is made against the bond, there are avenues where it will get reimbursed and indemnified for any cost it incurs, or payment it makes, relative to that claim against the bond. When a surety issues bonds, the objective is that all losses it incurs gets reimbursed because the bonds are NOT insurance policies. One of the powerful tools the surety can exercise in the General Agreement of Indemnity is to demand the bond-principal and other indemnitors to post collateral in an amount the surety deems sufficient to cover any losses it may incur. This is a right in any General Agreement of Indemnity I have seen and is a right the surety can rightfully exercise. A recent example is shown from the opinion in Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Quinco Electrical, Inc., 2022 WL 1230110 (M.D.Fla. 2022), which pertains to the surety’s motion for preliminary injunction. 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

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    October 28, 2011 —

    The Eleventh District of the US Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Nix v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. In this case, the Nixes filed a claim after a portion of the retaining wall in their home collapsed and their basement flooded. State Farm denied the claim “on the ground that the policy excluded coverage for collapses caused by defects in construction and for damage caused by groundwater.”

    The court reviewed the Nixes’ policy and found that State Farm’s statement did specifically exclude both of these items. In reviewing the lower court’s ruling, the appeals court noted that State Farm’s expert witness, Mark Voll, determined that the retaining wall “lacked reinforcing steel, as required by a local building code, and could not withstand the pressure created by groundwater that had accumulated during a heavy rainfall.” Additionally, a french drain had been covered with clay soil and so had failed to disperse the groundwater.

    The Nixes argued that the flooding was due to a main line water pipe, but their opinions were those of Terry Nix and the contractor who made temporary repairs to the wall. “Those opinions were not admissible as lay testimony. Neither Nix nor the contractor witnessed the wall collapse or had personal knowledge about the construction of the Nixes’ home.”

    The lower court granted a summary judgment to State Farm which has been upheld by the appeals court.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    The Advantages of Virtual Reality in Construction

    August 20, 2019 —
    Virtual realty provides an unparalleled spatial sense for visualization at a lower cost than full-scale replicas. Today, VR is being used heavily in preconstruction to align owner expectations and educate design team stakeholders. For those already employing BIM solutions, coordination can be made much more effective by leveraging existing design models with very little added cost. As anyone who has tried a VR headset before can attest, the ability to accurately perceive spatial relationships in design cannot be replicated through traditional 2D media such as screens or paper. VR solutions also have the ability to iterate rapidly. These technologies are linked to BIM, providing real-time feedback as the design changes. This is in stark contrast to traditional full-scale mockups and offline renders, which are cumbersome and time-consuming to update with design changes. Substantial benefits without a hefty price tag Budget limitations and ROI are always a concern with emerging technology. Fortunately, VR comes cheaply with BIM production. These solutions are significantly less expensive than full-scale mockups and far more efficient when compared to longhand sequencing explanations and esoteric detailing of complex designs. Even the most elaborate VR setups are a fraction of overall construction cost, ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars depending on the level of adoption. Reprinted courtesy of Spivey Lipsey, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of