BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction experts
    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


    Be Wary of Construction Defects when Joining a Community Association

    Public Adjuster Cannot Serve As Disinterested Appraiser

    Construction Contract Basics: Indemnity

    From Singapore to Rio Green Buildings Keep Tropical Tenants Cool

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tear Down This Wall!”

    Lack of Workers Holding Back Building

    Appraisal Process Analyzed

    Blackstone Suffers Court Setback in Irish Real Estate Drama

    New Insurance Case: Owners'​ Insurance Barred in Reimbursement Action against Tenant

    Facing Manslaughter Charges In Worker's 2021 Trench Collapse Death, Colorado Contractor Who Willfully Ignored Federal Law Surrenders To Police

    Survey: Workers Lack Awareness of Potentially Hazardous Nanomaterials

    Federal Court Rejects Insurer's Argument that Wisconsin Has Adopted the Manifestation Trigger for Property Policy

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Insurance Salesman had No Fiduciary Duty to Policyholders

    Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

    No Global MDL for COVID Business Interruption Claims, but Panel Will Consider Separate Consolidated Proceedings for Lloyds, Cincinnati, Hartford, Society

    Gen Xers Choose to Rent rather than Buy

    Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP Expands into Georgia

    Sanctions Issued for Frivolous Hurricane Sandy Complaint Filed Against Insurer

    A Few Green Building Notes

    Multiple Construction Errors Contributed to Mexico Subway Collapse

    Brenda Radmacher to Speak at Construction Super Conference 2024

    U.S. Codes for Deck Attachment

    The Pandemic of Litigation Sure to Follow the Coronavirus

    Your Work Exclusion Applies to Damage to Tradesman's Property, Not Damage to Other Property

    Business Solutions Alert: Homeowners' Complaint for Breach of Loan Modification Agreement Can Proceed Past Pleading Stage

    Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    Preliminary Notice Is More Important Than Ever During COVID-19

    A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

    What Cal/OSHA’s “Permanent” COVID Standards Mean for Employers

    HB 20-1046 - Private Retainage Reform - Postponed Indefinitely

    Allegations Versus “True Facts”: Which Govern the Duty to Defend? Bonus! A Georgia Court Clears Up What the Meaning of “Is” Is

    White and Williams Ranked in Top Tiers of "Best Law Firms"

    Indicted Union Representatives Try Again to Revive Enmons

    South Carolina Couple Must Arbitrate Construction Defect Claim

    Is Equipment Installed as Part of Building Renovations a “Product” or “Construction”?

    Fifth Circuit -- Damage to Property Beyond Insured’s Product/Work Not Precluded By ‘Your Product/Your Work Exclusion’

    Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

    Insurance Law Alert: Incorporation of Defective Work Does Not Result in Covered Property Damage in California Construction Claims

    Banks Rejected by U.S. High Court on Mortgage Securities Suits

    Missouri Protects Subrogation Rights

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/17/24) – Housing Inflation to Remain High, Proptech Investment to Fall and Office Vacancy Rates to Reach Peak in 2025

    Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute

    Why Is California Rebuilding in Fire Country? Because You’re Paying for It

    Court of Appeals Finds Additional Insured Coverage Despite “Care, Custody or Control” Exclusion

    Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground

    How Data Drives the Future of Design

    Insureds Survive Summary Judgment on Coverage for Hurricane Loss

    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 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

    Court Again Defines Extent of Contractor’s Insurance Coverage

    November 26, 2014 —
    The ever changing landscape of insurance coverage for contractors continues to be clarified in Texas. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals applied Texas law in Crownover v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, concluding that contractors do have insurance coverage to cover claims that a project was not constructed in a good and workmanlike manner. In this case, the Crownovers hired a contractor to build a house. The contract contained a warranty-to-repair clause. Shortly after construction was completed, cracks began to appear in the walls and foundation, and there were problems with the heating and air conditioning system. The Crownovers demanded that the contractor repair the problems and the contractor refused. The Crownovers brought an arbitration proceeding against the contractor and prevailed, obtaining a judgment that the contractor must pay for repairs to the foundation and HVAC system. The contractor then filed for bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court allowed the Crownovers to pursue their claim against the contractor’s insurer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens

    November 23, 2020 —
    In RGC Gaslamp v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., the Fourth Appellate District held that a trial court properly granted an anti-SLAPP motion because the recording of a mechanic’s lien is protected by the litigation privilege. In RGC Gaslamp, subcontractor Ehmcke Sheet Metal Company (“Ehmcke”) recorded a mechanic’s lien to recoup payment due for sheet metal fabrication and installation done at a luxury hotel project in downtown San Diego. Project owner RGC Gaslamp, LLC (“RGC”) recorded a release bond for the lien. Thereafter, Ehmcke recorded three successive mechanic’s liens identical to the first, prompting RGC to sue it for quiet title, slander of title, and declaratory and injunctive relief. After retaining California counsel, Ehmcke then released its liens and advised it did not intend to record any more. Ehmcke then filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16.) which was granted. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Signature, No Problem: Texas Court Holds Contractual Subrogation Waiver Still Enforceable

    April 10, 2023 —
    In Chubb Lloyds Inc. Co. of Tex. v. Buster & Cogdell Builders, LLC, No. 01-21-00503-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 676, the Court of Appeals of Texas, First District (Court of Appeals) considered whether the lower court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s subrogation case by enforcing a subrogation waiver in a construction contract which was not fully executed. The contract was signed by only one of the two subrogors and was not signed by the defendant general contractor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that despite the lack of signatures, the evidence established mutual assent to the contractual terms by all parties. The plaintiff’s subrogors, Jeffrey and Mary Meyer (collectively, the Meyers), retained defendant Buster & Codgell Builders (BCB) to expand their residence. BCB drafted a contract using the American Institute of Architects (AIA) standard form contract for residential construction. The AIA contract included, by reference, a subrogation waiver that applied to BCB and its subcontractors. Prior to beginning the work, BCB emailed Jeffrey Meyer a version of the contract that only had one signature block for both Jeffrey and Mary Meyer. Minutes later, BCB sent a second version of the contract which had a signature line for each of the Meyers. However, Jeffrey Meyer signed the first version of the contract and emailed it back to BCB. In the subject line of his email, Mr. Meyers asked that BCB countersign and return the contract. BCB did not sign and return the contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

    July 06, 2020 —
    AXA, one of the biggest insurance companies in the world, has agreed to pay COVID-related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in Paris after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under AXA’s policies. AXA initially took the position that its insurance policies did not cover business interruption caused by COVID-19. The restaurant then sued AXA in a French court, seeking coverage for operating losses resulting from a government order issued in March mandating the closure of restaurants and bars in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the government orders, which prohibited restaurants from receiving the public and offering traditional sit-down dining services, triggered the policy’s coverage for business interruption coverage. The court rejected AXA’s argument that the pandemic was uninsurable, and made clear that if AXA intended to exclude such a risk it should have done so expressly in its policy. The court also rejected AXA’s argument that there must be a prerequisite of an insured event for the application of the “administrative closure” provision, noting that no prerequisite was required by the policy. AXA’s argument that the government orders did not require the restaurant to be closed because the restaurant was authorized to maintain take-away services was also rejected. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the policyholders, holding that the business interruption loss resulting from the government orders qualified for insurance coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Umbrella Policy Must Drop Down to Assist with Defense

    May 12, 2016 —
    The court determined that an umbrella carrier was obligated to assist the general liability insurer in defending the insured. Am. States Ins. Co. v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, 2016 U.S. Dist LEXIS 38128 (E.D. Cal. March 23, 2016). Sierra Pacific Industries obtained rights to timber harvesting operation on a parcel of land in northern California. Sierra hired Howell's Forest Harvesting to perform certain timber harvest operations under the terms of a logging agreement. The logging agreement required Howell to obtain a CGL policy and to name Sierra as an additional insured. 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

    World’s Biggest Crane Gets to Work at British Nuclear Plant

    October 07, 2019 —
    The world’s largest crane is getting ready to hoist more than 700 of the heaviest pieces of the first new nuclear plant being built in Britain in decades. The machine, affectionately known as “Big Carl” after an executive at Belgian owner Sarens NV, is in place at Electricite de France SA’s 19.6 billion-pound ($24.1 billion) Hinkley Point C project in southwest England. It can carry as much as 5,000 tons, or the same weight as 1,600 cars, in a single lift and arrived on 280 truck loads from Belgium. It has taken about three months to build. Nuclear power makes up about a fifth of Britain’s electricity. Most of those plants are near the end of their lives and will close in the next decade. Replacing them won’t be easy—as the scale of the project shows. Earlier this year, EDF poured 9,000 cubic meters of cement, the biggest single biggest pour of concrete ever recorded in Britain. It was reinforced by 5,000 tons of steel built into a nest 4 meters high that’ll serve as the base of the first new reactor in the U.K. since 1995. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy Hodges, Bloomberg

    National Demand Increases for Apartments, Refuting Calls for Construction Defect Immunity in Colorado

    September 08, 2016 —
    For the last four years, the homebuilders’ lobby has been aggressively pushing the idea that consumer protection laws are stifling condominium construction in Colorado. The lobbyists claim that the fear of liability for construction defects has forced many local developers to build apartments instead of condominiums. They have dismissed the notions that the shift to apartments merely reflects supply and demand, or that modern families might actually prefer to rent rather than buy. To support this theory, they have touted high condominium sales in other states. A new story from NPR’s Here & Now refutes this claim, however. Contrary to what the lobbyists have been saying, data now confirm that large numbers of Americans prefer to rent, not buy, their homes. NPR reported today that home ownership in the U.S. fell to its lowest rate since 1965, while the share of U.S. households who rent is nearing a 50-year high. This trend appears nationwide and can hardly be blamed on consumer protection laws in Colorado. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.witt.law

    Construction Defect Lawsuits May Follow Hawaii Condo Boom

    January 23, 2013 —
    Hawaii is having a bit of a building boom and with this, as Honolulu Civil Beat points out, comes a boom in construction defect litigation, noting that “if past experience is any indicator, the wave of construction will likely be followed by a surge in complex and, for attorneys at least, profitable litigation.” The article provides plenty of evidence to back up that assertion. Defect claims are already resulted in a settlement at Pinnacle Honolulu, a 37-unit luxury condominium project. The owners received a $2.4 million settlement after building code violations were discovered, including fire partitions that either were not fully extended or were breached in some fashion. Meanwhile, the owners of the Koolani Condominiums are still trying to collect on their $12 million arbitration award related to problems in the water system. Another luxury condominium project, the Hokua Condominiums, also has had problems with flooding from water pipes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of