BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimony
    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


    First Circuit Limits Insurers’ Right to Recoup Defense Costs or Settlement Payments

    Critical Updates in Builders Risk Claim Recovery: Staying Ahead of the "Satisfactory State" Argument and Getting the Most Out of LEG 3

    Seattle Developer Defaults on Renovated Office Buildings

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    Spa High-Rise Residents Frustrated by Construction Defects

    The “Ugly” Property Next Door is Ruining My Property Value

    Additional Insured Prevails on Summary Judgment For Duty to Defend, Indemnify

    Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

    World-Famous Architects Design $480,000 Gazebos for Your Backyard

    Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses

    Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part II

    The Reptile Theory in Practice

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Recognized Among The Top 50 Construction Law FirmsTM of 2023 by Construction Executive

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben, and Justyn Verzillo Secure Dismissal of All Claims in a Premises Liability Case

    Motions to Dismiss, Limitations of Liability, and More

    Augmented and Mixed Reality in Construction

    South Carolina Homeowners May Finally Get Class Action for Stucco Defects

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Inverse Condemnation Action

    Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”

    Orion Group Holdings Honored with Leadership in Safety Award

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded as Part of "Damages Because of Property Damage"

    Renters Who Bought Cannot Sue for Construction Defects

    California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

    Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens

    What If There Is a Design Error?

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives “Tier 1” Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    Climate-Proofing Your Home: Upgrades to Weather a Drought

    Selected Environmental Actions Posted on the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulator Actions

    The Risks and Rewards of Sustainable Building Design

    Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only

    DoD Testing New Roofing System that Saves Energy and Water

    Connecting Construction Project Information: Open Technology Databases Improve Project Communication, Collaboration and Visibility

    Umbrella Policy Must Drop Down to Assist with Defense

    What Should Business Owners Do If a Customer Won’t Pay

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

    COVID-19 Impacts on Subcontractor Default Insurance and Ripple Effects

    Homeowners Sued for Failing to Disclose Defects

    How to Remove a Mechanics Lien from Your Property

    Why 8 Out of 9 Californians Don't Buy Earthquake Insurance

    Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

    Because I Haven’t Mentioned Mediation Lately. . .

    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    District Court Allows DBE False Claims Act Case to Proceed

    COVID-19 Likely No Longer Covered Under Force Majeure

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP Attorneys to Speak at the 2016 National Construction Claims Conference

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    Appraisal Award for Damaged Roof Tiles Challenged

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws
    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

    Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses What It Means to “Reside” in Property for Purposes of Coverage

    July 16, 2023 —
    In Dardar v. Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n, 2023 IL App ( 5th ) 220357-U, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals addressed an insured’s suit against her property insurer after the carrier denied coverage for a fire loss. The property in question was inherited by the Plaintiff from her brother and was in the process of being renovated at the time of the fire loss. After the fire, the Plaintiff’s homeowners carrier denied the claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not occupying the property at the time of the fire and was therefore not covered under the terms of the policy. It was undisputed that the Plaintiffs never lived in or physically occupied the home. Correspondingly, the carrier denied the claim on the basis that the policy only covered the Plaintiff’s "residence premises," which was defined as: (1) the one-family dwelling where you reside; (2) the two, three, or four-family dwelling where you reside in at least one of the units; or (3) that part of any other building in which you reside. The carrier determined that the Plaintiff did not “reside” at the property and therefore were not covered under the policy terms. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    U.S. Supreme Court Allows Climate Change Lawsuits to Proceed in State Court

    May 01, 2023 —
    Washington, D.C. (April 25, 2023) - On Monday, April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeals by several major energy companies that sought to remove lawsuits filed by state and local governments from state court into federal court. The Court’s certiorari denials reject companies’ appeals in five separate cases, which involved claims brought by municipalities in Colorado, Maryland, California, Hawaii, and Rhode Island. Each municipality claims that it has been harmed by the effects of climate change, allegedly attributed to the companies’ carbon emissions. The Court’s denials effectively allow the lawsuits to continue in state court, often seen as favorable for plaintiffs due to a greater potential for jury trials and associated damages awards than might be available in federal court. Following a 2021 Supreme Court ruling in a related case that granted the companies an additional chance to argue that their cases should be heard in federal court, the lower federal appeals courts in each of the five cases concluded that the companies had not established sufficient grounds to establish proper venue and jurisdiction in federal court. The Supreme Court’s April 24 denial leaves those decisions unaltered, allowing the lawsuits to continue in state court for further consideration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of George Leahy, Lewis Brisbois

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    December 09, 2011 —

    Water intrusion caused by a construction defect was not covered under the all risk policy’s ensuing loss provision. See Friedberg v. Chubb & Son, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123582 (D. Minn. Oct. 25, 2011).

    Extensive water damage was discovered in the insureds’ home when a small hole in the exterior wall was being repaired. Chubb’s adjuster and an expert found water intrusion causing rot, mold, and damage to the home’s wood framing and insulation. Chubb denied coverage because water intruded through the roof and wall, resulting in gradual deterioration. The insureds filed suit.

    The policy excluded coverage for construction defects, but insured "ensuing covered loss unless another exclusion applies."

    The court agreed there was a prima facie case for coverage because the home suffered a physical loss.

    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

    Default, Fraud, and VCPA (Oh My!)

    September 12, 2023 —
    I’ve discussed the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) and the interaction between fraud and contract on numerous occasions here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case from the Eastern District of Virginia District Court discusses this interaction (along with that dreaded default) further. In Bhutta v. DRM Construction Corp., the homeowners, the Bhuttas, sued DRM for breach of contract, conversion, fraud, and a violation of the VCPA. These allegations were based upon DRM having taken a $40,000.00 deposit from the Bhuttas and then failing to even begin work. As you may have guessed from the title of this post, DRM did not respond to the Complaint and the Court granted default. The Court then took up the question of whether the Bhuttas had alleged enough on each count for default judgment on those counts. After going through a procedural recitation and finding that DRM was properly served and that the Court had jurisdiction, the Court got to the meat of the matter. The Court held that the Bhuttas properly plead a breach of contract for the obvious reason. The reason was that DRM never performed any work and the Bhuttas were damaged because they both paid the deposit and also had to hire another contractor to complete the work at a higher price. The Court granted default judgment for breach of contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Calls for CFPB Investigation into Tenant Screening Businesses

    December 13, 2021 —
    Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, has written to newly confirmed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Rohit Chopra, asking him to review companies in the tenant screening industry for possible Fair Credit Reporting Act violations and other violations of U.S. laws. The CFPB, for its part, has already published a bulletin alerting Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs) and other furnishers of consumer information that, as federal, state and local pandemic-related housing protections expire, the Bureau will be giving greater enforcement focus to these businesses’ compliance with accuracy and dispute obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Regulation V. While it is still unclear whether Director Chopra will direct the Bureau to investigate specific businesses flagged by Chairman Brown, the tenant screening industry will likely face increased scrutiny in the coming months, which may impact their service offerings and cause interruptions for landlords relying on these businesses and services. There are approximately 2,000 tenant screening companies across the United States. These companies are used by landlords to better identify and perform background checks on prospective tenants. These reports typically provide a prospective tenant’s rental and eviction histories, credit score, debt-to-income ratio, and outstanding credit obligations, among other financial metrics. The reports also usually include a criminal background check, including searches of sex offender registries and other public records searches. Many tenant screening companies then use this information to provide an estimate of the risk that each tenant presents, calculated through proprietary algorithmic formulas. These reports are usually available to landlords at a cost ranging from approximately $5 to $55 per report, usually passed through to the prospective tenant through application fees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian H. Montgomery, Pillsbury
    Mr. Montgomery may be contacted at brian.montgomery@pillsburylaw.com

    Revolutionizing Buildings with Hybrid Energy Systems and Demand Response

    January 08, 2024 —
    A recent study conducted by the Finnish Building Services 2030 group explores the potential technologies and business prospects for adaptable energy systems within buildings. Building Services 2030 is a Finnish consortium of Aalto University, Tampere University, and 14 industry partners. The consortium has defined a shared vision for the Finnish building service sector and researches topics that help reach the vision. My company is responsible for the group’s communication, so I eagerly read the research reports as they come out. One of the new reports I found very timely is about the energy flexibility of buildings. The authors are Senior Researcher Juha Jokisalo and Professor Matti Lehtonen from Aalto University. They highlight how the contemporary energy landscape is undergoing a significant transformation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    When is a “Notice of Completion” on a California Private Works Construction Project Valid? Why Does It Matter for My Collection Rights?

    January 27, 2020 —
    What is a Notice of Completion? A “notice of completion” is a document recorded by the owner of property where construction work was performed. Specifically, it is recorded at the Office of the County Recorder in the County where the work was performed. The notice of completion tells the world at large that the construction project is complete. It also triggers the deadlines for those who have not been paid to make their claims for payment. Is an Owner of a California Private Works Project Required to Record a Notice of Completion? No, there is no requirement that an owner of a California private works construction project record a Notice of Completion. However, there are consequences which depend on whether an Owner elects to record the notice or not. For My Collection Rights, Why Does it Matter Whether a Notice of Completion Has Been Recorded? The date of recording of a valid notice of completion sets the deadline for those who have not been paid for work performed and materials supplied to a California construction project to pursue such important collection remedies as the “mechanics lien”, the “stop payment notice” and the “payment bond claim.” These are very powerful collection remedies for those who have not been paid. If the deadline to pursue these remedies is missed by a claimant, then the claimant’s right to pursue these remedies is also missed. One of these remedies, the mechanics lien, will enable the claimant to sell the owner’s property where the work was performed in order to get paid. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Construction Slow to Begin in Superstorm Sandy Cases

    March 12, 2014 —
    U.S. Senator Robert Mendendez of New Jersey, “has called on government officials to speed up the way home rebuilding aid is reaching thousands of New Jersey victims of Superstorm Sandy,” according to CBS New York. Mendendez stated that out of the 12,000 people who have received “preliminary approval for aid” under New Jersey’s “Reconstruction, Elevation and Mitigation program,” only “2,700 have been told they can begin construction.” The storm occurred more than sixteen months ago. “Part of the problem,” Mendendez told CBS New York, “has been that state officials have placed federally required environmental and historic preservation reviews at the end of the lengthy aid application process. That delays rebuilding because federal rules allow reconstruction work to begin once those reviews are completed.” CBS New York reported that the state announced that those “using their own contractors to rebuild homes can request 50 percent of their grant in advance under the change, which went into effect Monday.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of