BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut consulting engineers
    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


    Rams Owner Stan Kroenke Debuts His $5.5 Billion Dream Stadium

    California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase “Ongoing Operations” In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations

    Following My Own Advice

    Appellate Division Confirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owners in Action Alleging Labor Law Violations

    Yes, Virginia, Contract Terms Do Matter: Financing Term Offers Owner an Escape Hatch

    Peru’s Former President and His Wife to Stay in Jail After Losing Appeal

    Luxury Homes Push City’s Building Permits Past $7.5 Million

    Gain in Home Building Points to Sustained U.S. Growth

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

    Wisconsin “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    LA Lakers Partially Survive Motion to Dismiss COVID-19 Claims

    Subcontractor Exception to "Your Work" Exclusion Does Not Apply to Coverage Under Subcontractor's Policy

    Grenfell Fire Probe Faults Construction Industry Practices

    Court Holds That Parent Corporation Lacks Standing to Sue Subsidiary’s Insurers for Declaratory Relief

    No Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses

    St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.

    The Cheap and Easy Climate Fix That Can Cool the Planet Fast

    Performance Bonds: Follow the Letter of the Bond and Keep The Surety Informed

    Mercury News Editorial Calls for Investigation of Bay Bridge Construction

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Nebraska Court of Appeals Vacates Arbitration Award for Misconduct

    Renee Mortimer Recognized as "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by DTCI

    Mechanic’s Liens and Leases Don’t Often Mix Well

    Additional Insurance Coverage Determined for General Contractor

    New Home for the Aged Suffers Construction Defects

    Use Your Instincts when Negotiating a Construction Contract

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    Eleventh Circuit Holds that EPA Superfund Remedial Actions are Usually Entitled to the FTCA “Discretionary Function” Exemption

    Land a Cause of Home Building Shortage?

    Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    Resilience: Transforming the Energy Sector – Navigating Land Issues in Solar and Storage Projects | Episode 3 (11.14.24)

    Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations

    Manhattan Trophy Home Sellers Test Buyer Limits on Price

    ASCE Joins White House Summit on Building Climate-Resilient Communities

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael K. Kiernan and Associate Brandon Christian Obtain Dismissal with Prejudice in Favor of Defendant

    Hirer Liable for Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Due to Failure to Act, Not Just Affirmative Acts, Holds Court of Appeal

    Bill Introduced to give Colorado Shortest Statute of Repose in U.S.

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

    Herman Russell's Big Hustle

    99-Year-Old Transmission Tower Seen as Possible Cause of Devastating Calif. Wildfire

    Business Insurance Names Rachel Hudgins Among 2024 Break Out Award Winners

    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

    AB5 Construction Exemption - A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5's Three-Part Test

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision

    Addenda to Construction Contracts Can Be an Issue

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex
    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

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    April 14, 2011 —

    Assemblyman John Oceguera has written a bill that would redefine the term Construction Defect, set statutory limitations, and force the prevailing party to pay for attorney’s fees. Assembly Bill 401 has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

    Currently, the law in Nevada states that “a defect in the design, construction, manufacture, repair or landscaping of a new residence, of an alteration of or addition to an existing residence, or of an appurtenance, which is done in violation of law, including in violation of local codes or ordinances, is a constructional defect.” However, AB401 “provides that there is a rebuttable presumption that workmanship which exceeds the standards set forth in the applicable law, including any applicable local codes or ordinances, is not a constructional defect.”

    The Nevada courts may award attorney fees to the prevailing party today. However, AB401 mandates that attorney fees must be awarded, and the exact award is to be determined by the Court. “(1) The court shall award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees, which must be an element of costs and awarded as costs; and (2) the amount of any attorney’s fees awarded must be determined by and approved by the court.”

    AB401 also sets a three year statutory limit “for an action for damages for certain deficiencies, injury or wrongful death caused by a defect in construction if the defect is a result of willful misconduct or was fraudulently concealed.”

    This Nevada bill is in the early stages of development.

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

    Top 10 OSHA Violations For The Construction Industry In 2023

    February 26, 2024 —
    Every year, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) publishes their top violations in the construction industry. And typically, the most common violations are consistent year after year. What separates 2023 is the number of citations involving Fall Protection, Scaffolding, Ladders, and the failure to use personal protective equipment (PPE) or other life safety equipment (LSE). The following is the list of the Top Ten OSHA violations for 2023: (10) Toxic and Hazardous Substances. There were 382 citations issued for “hazardous communication” and improper warnings issued to construction employees. (9) Excavations. There were 395 citations issued for failure to provide proper and specific excavation requirements and instructions. (8) Scaffolding – Aerial Lifts. There were 481 citations issued for improper lifting equipment and supports for building scaffolding. Reprinted courtesy of Dominic Donato, Kahana Feld and Jeff Miragliotta, Kahana Feld Mr. Donato may be contacted at ddonato@kahanafeld.com Mr. Miragliotta may be contacted at jmiragliotta@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Houston Office Secures Favorable Verdict in Trespass and Nuisance Case Involving Subcontractor’s Accidental Installation of Storm Sewer Pipe on Plaintiff’s Property

    June 12, 2023 —
    Houston, Texas (May 26, 2023) - Houston Partners Joelle Nelson and Matt Begley secured a defense verdict on behalf of a gasoline services company following a four-day trial in the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. In this case, Lewis Brisbois represented a client who hired a contractor to install a storm sewer line to mitigate flood risks to the client’s property. The contractor, however, deviated from the engineering plans and installed the storm sewer line on a neighboring property owned by the plaintiff. The storm sewer line then remained on the plaintiff’s property for five years while the parties attempted to negotiate potential solutions to the situation. The plaintiff refused multiple reasonable settlement attempts and ultimately sued the client and the contractor for continuous trespass and private nuisance. The contractor’s carrier denied coverage, making the client the target defendant. The matter proceeded to trial. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    A Discussion on Home Affordability

    April 08, 2014 —
    Krishna Rao, in the online publication Zillow Real Estate Research, analyzed statistics on home price affordability across the United States. Rao found that “[a]cross the United States, strong home price affordability has been recently eroded by a combination of rising home prices and mortgage rates. Some areas, particularly on the West Coast, have begun to look unaffordable compared to their historic norms, forcing some household to look to the periphery of urban areas in search of affordable homes.” However, John McManus in Big Builder said a more helpful term when looking at the new home market would be “relative affordability (which inheres both payment power and access to credit).” “Little attention has been given to the fact that many builders' mix--first- and second-time move-up and higher end homes.” McManus wrote that this “has skewed pricing conversations. When the buyer is ‘discretionary,’ has access to cash and no impediment of another property to sell in order to trigger a purchase--then both base price and price elasticity can be greater.” Read the full story, Zillow... Read the full story, Big Builder... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    May 24, 2018 —
    Twenty-five years ago. 1993. On January 23rd, Bill Clinton was sworn in as the 42nd President of the United States. The average cost of a gallon of gasoline was $1.16, a movie ticket cost $4.00, and the average cost of a new home was $113,200.00. 1993 also marked the first of what would be a quarter century of annual seminars hosted by West Coast Casualty Service, and provided to the combined professionals within the Construction Defect Community. As the seminar has grown both in attendance and prominence within this community under the watchful stewardship of David and Coral Stern, much has changed both with regard to the content of the seminar and the climate within which it was presented. A quick look at the topics addressed over the past 25 years of the Construction Defect Seminar provides one with a veritable history of construction defect litigation and insurance coverage trends across the United States and beyond. While the first seminar was hosted in 1993, my first attendance didn’t occur until 1999, and the first time I was honored to be a panelist would have to wait until 2007. In the subsequent years, I’ve had the opportunity to sit on panels an additional three times, and each one I gained rare and valuable insights into the Construction Defect Community, its willingness to challenge itself, and the amazing professionals we all have the distinct pleasure of working with every day (and whom we sometimes take too much for granted). In the mid to late 90’s, topics at the seminar included such subjects as the Montrose Chemical Corp v. Superior Court decision (Montrose) regarding a carrier’s duty to defend and the subsequent Stonewall Insurance case that examined the duty to indemnify in the context of construction defect claims. The California Calderon Act of 1997, laying out the roadmap for HOA’s filing construction defect lawsuits was also a topic of discussion and debate within the West Coast “arena.” The new millennium saw the landmark Aas v. William Lyon decision, which disallowed negligence claims for construction defects in the absence of actual resultant damage. This was followed by Presley Homes v. American States Insurance wherein the court ruled that a duty to defend applies where there is mere potential for coverage and the duty to defend applies to the entire action. Each of these bellwether decisions was addressed contemporaneously by panels at the West Coast seminar, contemporaneously bringing additional dialog to the CD community, from within the community. 2002 brought what has become the defining legislation in California regarding construction defect litigation and a builder’s right to repair. Senate Bill 800 (SB800), and its subsequent codification as Title 7, Part 2 of Division 2 of the California Civil Code, Sections 895 through 945.5 would become the defining framework for similar legislation across the United States. During the course of its drafting, movement through the legislature, and final adoption in January of 1993, many of the questions raised and debated in committees in Sacramento, had already been and were continuing to be addressed by panelists at the West Coast Seminar. How does SB800 work with Calderon? How does it affect the prior Aas decision? What now constitutes a defect, and what are timeframes established within the complex pre-litigation process? Open the pages of the 2002 – 2004 Seminar invitations and you’ll see panels comprised of the finest members of the insurance law and coverage communities addressing those very questions (and more)! As the first decade of the new century drew to a close, a brief review of the WCC invitations from that period suggests a trend towards programmatic analyses of key themes selected for the seminar. In 2008, my second opportunity as a guest speaker, topics included a review of the state of construction defect litigation in a post-SB 800 environment. Panelists offered retrospective insight into the state of right to repair statutes in multiple states, while others offered a glimpse at where the industry might be headed, as similar legislation was enacted across the country. As always, pertinent court decisions bearing on construction defect, both in California, and elsewhere were given unique perspective and additional clarity by multiple panels of gifted speakers. In 2009, claims and coverage were examined from multiple unique perspectives, including that of plaintiff, the policyholder, and the insurer. Wrap policies and the gaps in due to self-insured retention obligations were examined. As we rapidly approach the end of the second decade of the 21st Century, West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar continues to lead the Construction Defect Community as the premier source for information and peer dialog on all matters relating to construction law, coverage, and emerging trends. In 2017, the Seminar tackled such broad subjects as the role of women in the construction industry, claims management, and risk management, challenges raised by wrap versus non-wrap litigation, and the emergent trend of apartment to condo conversions (and the attendant coverage challenges). On May 16th at the Disneyland Resort, in Anaheim California, America’s largest Construction Defect event kicked off its 25th Anniversary celebration. As has been every year since 1993, the Seminar provided insurance, legal, and industry professionals an exciting and informative array of salient and timely panel topics, as well as a stellar faculty of gifted panelists. This year’s West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar, like the past 25 years, was not only informative and educational, but also a promise for another 25 years of peerless service to the Construction Defect Community. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Self-Insured Retention Satisfaction and Made Whole Doctrine

    March 11, 2014 —
    Intervest Construction of Jax, Inc. v. General Fidelity Insurance Co., * So.2d * (Fla. 2014), the issue was whether the insured general contractor could satisfy the SIR in its CGL policy with funds it received from the insurer of a subcontractor in settlement of the general contractor’s contractual indemnity claim against that subcontractor. ICI was the general contractor for a residence sold to Ferrin. Several years after completion, Ferrin suffered injuries in a fall while using attic stairs installed by ICI’s subcontractor Custom Cutting. Ferrin sued ICI but not Custom Cutting. ICI was insured by General Fidelity with a $1M SIR. ICI sought contractual indemnity from Custom Cutting. The Ferrin suit was ultimately settled for $1.6M. Custom Cutting’s CGL insurer paid $1M to ICI to resolve ICI’s contractual indemnity claim. Using the $1M paid on behalf of Custom Cutting and $300K of its own funds, ICI paid $1.3M to Ferrin. General Fidelity paid the remaining $300K with an agreement with ICI that each was entitled to seek reimbursement of $300K from the other. ICI filed suit in Florida state court. General Fidelity removed to federal court. The Eleventh Circuit certified the relevant questions to the Supreme Court of Florida. The Florida Supreme Court first held that the General Fidelity SIR allowed ICI to satisfy the SIR through indemnification payments received from a third party. While the SIR provision stated that it must be satisfied by the insured, it did not include any language proscribing the source of the funds used by the insured to satisfy the SIR. The court distinguished other decisions where the SIR endorsement expressly stated that payments by others, including other insurers, could not satisfy the SIR. The court also relied on the fact that ICI “hedged its retained risk” by paying for its entitlement to contractual indemnification from its subcontractor years prior to purchasing the General Fidelity policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

    The Importance of the Recent Amendment to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

    January 22, 2024 —

    Every litigator understands that expert witnesses play a key role in litigation, especially when dealing with construction issues. Expert testimony at trial can be a deciding factor in persuading a judge or jury in your client’s favor. It is so important that, as parties get closer to trial, litigators often spend considerable time filing motions to limit or disqualify certain aspects of expert testimony in an effort to gain an advantage at trial. Because experts are a key aspect of the trial process, it is important to understand the various rules governing use of expert testimony, primarily Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

    On December 1, 2023, amendments to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence went into effect which added the language in underline below and removed the language which is crossed out:

    Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witness

    A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:

    (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

    (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

    (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

    (d) the expert has reliably applied expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
    Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com

    Missouri Asbestos Litigation Reform: New Bill Seeks to Establish Robust Disclosure Obligations

    March 15, 2021 —
    Missouri State Senator Eric Burlison is reviving attempts to reform asbestos litigation in the State of Missouri through the introduction of SB 331. This bill was pre-filed on December 29, 2020 and first read on January 6, 2021. The bill establishes disclosure procedures for claimants in asbestos-related lawsuits. Specifically, the bill, if passed, would require claimants in civil asbestos-related lawsuits to file a sworn information form within 30 days of filing an asbestos-related lawsuit. The required disclosures under SB 331 include, but are not limited to (1) each asbestos-containing product to which the exposed person was exposed and each physical location at which the exposure occurred; (2) the identity of the manufacturer or distributor of specific asbestos-containing products for each named exposure; (3) the specific location and manner of each exposure; (4) the beginning and end dates of each exposure, the frequency and length of each exposure, and the proximity of the asbestos-containing product or its use to the exposed person; and (5) a certification that any claim that can be made with a bankruptcy trust concerning any asbestos injury to the exposed person has been filed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer B. Pigeon, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Pigeon may be contacted at Jenna.Pigeon@lewisbrisbois.com