BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnesses
    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


    “Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

    Making the Construction Industry a Safer place for Women

    Update: Amazon Can (Still) Be Liable in Louisiana

    Dump Site Provider Has Valid Little Miller Act Claim

    Construction Activity on the Upswing

    Report Highlights Trends in Construction Tech, Digitization, and AI

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Condominium Association Responsibility to Resolve Construction Defect Claims

    Certificates Of Merit For NC Lawsuits Against Engineers And Architects? (Still No)(Law Note)

    10 Answers to Those Nagging Mechanics Lien Questions Keeping You Up at Night. Kind of

    Gaps in Insurance Created by Complex Risks

    Alabama Supreme Court Reverses Determination of Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    Judgment for Insurer Reversed Due to Failure to Establish Depreciation

    CDJ’s #2 Topic of the Year: Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 Tex. LEXIS 39 (Tex. Jan.17, 2014)

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twenty White and Williams Lawyers

    Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition

    Why Builders Should Reconsider Arbitration Clauses in Construction Contracts

    The “Builder’s Remedy” Looms Over Bay Area Cities

    The Construction Lawyer as Problem Solver

    Understanding Lien Waivers

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    A Race to the Finish on Oroville Dam Spillway Fix

    Florida trigger

    Register and Watch Partner John Toohey Present on the CLM Webinar Series!

    Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance May Be Immune From Bad Faith, But Is Not Immune From Consequential Damages

    Collapse of Breezeway Attached to Building Covered

    Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

    Palo Alto Considers Fines for Stalled Construction Projects

    Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    Gary Bague Elected Chairman of ALFA International’s Board of Directors

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/17/24) – Travel & Tourism Reach All-Time High, President Biden Emphasizes Housing in SOTU Address, and State Transportation Projects Under Scrutiny

    Surety Bond Producers Keep Eye Out For Illegal Waivers

    Cuomo Proposes $1.7 Billion Property-Tax Break for New York

    Court Says KBR Construction Costs in Iraq were Unreasonable

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

    WCC and BHA Raised Thousands for Children’s Cancer Research at 25th West Coast Casualty CD Seminar

    School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty

    The Expansion of Potential Liability of Construction Managers and Consultants

    Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims

    The Future of High-Rise is Localized and Responsive

    Insurer's Judgment on the Pleadings Based Upon Expected Injury Exclusion Reversed

    Recent Bad Faith Decisions in Florida Raise Concerns

    Insurer Prohibited from Bringing Separate Contribution Action in Subrogation to Rights of Suspended Insured

    What Do I Do With This Stuff? Dealing With Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

    Alaska Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade

    District of Oregon Predicts Oregon’s Place in “Plain Meaning” Pollution Camp

    Monumental Museum Makeover Comes In For Landing

    Occurrence-Based Insurance Policies and Claims-Made Insurance Policies – There’s a Crucial Difference

    Celebrating Dave McLain’s Recognition in the Best Lawyers in America® 2025
    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

    Congratulations 2022 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    August 03, 2022 —

    Twelve White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while eleven received "Rising Star" designations. Lawyers are selected through a process that takes into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year’s list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm.

    Super Lawyers 2022

    AttorneyPractice Area
    John Balaguer PI Defense: Med Mal
    David Chaffin Business Litigation
    Eric Hermanson Insurance Coverage
    Michael Kassak General Litigation
    Bridget La Rosa Estate Planning and Probate
    Randy Maniloff Insurance Coverage
    David Marion Business Litigation
    Wesley Payne Insurance Coverage
    Patricia Santelle Insurance Coverage
    Jay Shapiro Criminal Defense: White Collar
    Heidi Sorvino Bankruptcy: Business
    Andrew Susko Civil Litigation: Defense
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    United States Supreme Court Backtracks on Recent Trajectory Away from Assertions of General Jurisdiction in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern

    August 01, 2023 —
    Washington, D.C. (June 28, 2023) – On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a sharply divided opinion that appears to backtrack on the Court’s steady trajectory away from assertions of general jurisdiction in recent years, e.g. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011), Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 2017, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017). Relying on a case from 1917, Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U. S. 93 (1917), Justice Gorsuch, writing on behalf of the plurality, (Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Sotomayor, and Jackson) (Justice Alito concurring) found that Norfolk Southern “consented” to jurisdiction in Mallory via 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301(a)(2)(i),(b) by registering to do business in Pennsylvania. This statute, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301, specifically permits jurisdiction over a corporation “incorporat[ed] under or qualifi[ed]as a foreign corporation under the laws of this Commonwealth … for any cause of action that may asserted against him, whether or not arising from acts enumerated in this section.” In Pennsylvania Fire, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution in connection with a Missouri law that required an out-of-state insurance company desiring to transact any business in the state to file paperwork agreeing to (1) appoint a state official to serve as the company’s agent for service of process and (2) accept service on that official as valid in any suit. After more than a decade of complying with the law, Pennsylvania Fire was served with process and argued that the Missouri law violated due process. The Court unanimously found that there was “no doubt” that Pennsylvania Fire could be sued in Missouri because it had agreed to accept service of process in Missouri on any suit as a condition of doing business there. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Charles S. Anderson, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Anderson may be contacted at Charles.Anderson@lewisbrisbois.com

    Texas Couple Claim Many Construction Defects in Home

    October 08, 2013 —
    A Galveston, Texas couple has claimed that their new home has “many” defects and are suing the seller. John Klein and Cheri Harmon-Klein state that they were told that the house was built in conformance with the International Residential Code and that the all hurricane damage had been repaired. Instead, they characterized the house as “unfit for human habitation.” The couple claims that the defects were not evident at inspection prior to their purchase. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    De-escalating The Impact of Price Escalation

    August 10, 2021 —
    What happens when construction material prices abruptly rise by 15%, 35%, 50%? Moreover, what happens to a construction project when such volatility occurs? While there is no definite answer, delays in procuring such materials and associated cost overruns will likely impact the construction project. The last 15 months contractors have had to work through extraordinary construction material price increases, such as a 90% price increase for lumber from April 2020 to April 2021. While there is no statistic quantifying the impact these increases have had on the construction industry, the increases surely have had an influence, whether it has been through lost profits, delays, or damage to contractors’ otherwise strong reputation for timely performance. Considerations Prior To Contract Execution The first way to mitigate price escalation is identifying materials most susceptible to price volatility during the bidding process and then having an open discussion with upstream parties regarding the potential price volatility. Additionally, the bid may also include either (1) an allowance for the materials providing additional funds, if necessary, should the material price increase, or (2) a shortened timeframe in which the bid is open, which would lessen the time in which a price shift may occur. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian C. Padove, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP
    Mr. Padove may be contacted at bpadove@watttieder.com

    Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL

    August 03, 2020 —
    On June 29, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned a longstanding precedent that commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurers have historically relied upon to deny insurance coverage for claims involving pre-1986 CGL policies. See Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369, 372, 460 N.W.2d 329, 331 (1990). In its recent ruling, the state Supreme Court unanimously agreed that an Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) 1986 standard CGL policy, which is sold to construction contractors across the United States, provides coverage for property damage to a policyholder’s work product that resulted from a subcontractor’s unintended faulty workmanship. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., No. 159510, 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020). In 2008, Skanska USA Building, Inc., the construction manager on a renovation project for Mid-Michigan Medical Center, signed a subcontract with defendant M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors (“MAP”) to install a new heating and cooling (“HVAC”) system. Id. During the renovation, MAP installed some of the expansion joints in the new HVAC system backwards. Id. The defective installation caused approximately $1.4 million in property damage to concrete, steel and the heating system, which Skanska discovered nearly two years after MAP completed the project. Id. After performing the repairs and replacing the damaged property, Skanska sought repayment for the repair costs from MAP and also submitted a claim to Amerisure seeking coverage as an insured under the CGL policy. Id. When Amerisure rejected Skanska’s claim, Skanska sued both parties. Id. Amerisure relied on the holding in Hawkeye and argued that MAP’s defective workmanship was not a covered “occurrence” under the CGL policy, which the policy defined as an accident. Id. at *4. The Michigan Court of Appeals ignored the express language contained in the CGL policy and applied a prior appellate court precedent from Hawkeye, finding that MAP’s faulty work was not an “occurrence” and thus, did not trigger CGL coverage. Id. at *4. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that Skanska was an Amerisure policyholder and that the only property damage was to Skanska’s own work, which was not covered under the CGL policy. Id. at *5. In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding unanimously that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the holding of Hawkeye because it failed to consider the impact of the 1986 revisions to standard CGL insurance policies. Id. at *10. Chief Justice Bridget M. McCormack explained that the Hawkeye decision rested on the 1973 version of the ISO form insurance policy, which specifically excluded certain business risks from coverage such as property damage to a policyholder’s own work. Id. The Supreme Court agreed that while Hawkeye was correctly decided, it did not apply here because the 1986 revised ISO policy includes an exception for property damage caused by a subcontractor’s unintentional faulty work. Id. The Supreme Court said that under the plain reading of the current CGL policy language, an “accident” could include a subcontractor’s unintentional defective work that damaged a policyholder’s work product and thus, may qualify as an “occurrence” covered under the policy. Id. at *9. The Supreme Court defined an “accident” (which was not defined in the Amerisure policy) as “an undefined contingency, a casualty, a happening by chance, something out of the usual course of things, unusual, fortuitous, not anticipated, and not naturally to be expected.” Id. at *5; see Allstate Ins. Co. v. McCarn, 466 Mich. 277, 281, 645 N.W.2d 20, 23 (2002). The Supreme Court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that MAP purposefully installed the expansion joints backwards, nor was there evidence indicating that the parties affected by MAP’s negligence anticipated, foresaw, or expected MAP’s defective installation or property damage. Skanska, 2020 WL 3527909, at *4. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that an “occurrence” may have happened, which would trigger coverage under the CGL policy. Id. at *10. Although this landmark decision changes Michigan law, the decision is limited to cases involving the 1986 ISO policy language revisions to CGL insurance policies. Id. The Supreme Court's decision does not overturn Hawkeye, but rather limits Hawkeye’s authority to cases involving the 1973 ISO form. Id. Gabrielle Szlachta-McGinn was a summer associate at Newmeyer Dillion as part of the firm's 2020 summer class. You may learn more about Newmeyer Dillion's construction litigation services and find the group's key contacts at https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/construction-litigation/. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Court of Appeals Decides the Triple Crown Case

    January 17, 2014 —
    In an earlier blog post, I discussed the case of Triple Crown Observatory Village Assn., Inc. v. Village Homes of Colorado, Inc., et al (2013 WL 5761028) because it presented the rare case where the Colorado Court of Appeals accepted an interlocutory appeal. Notably, the interlocutory appeal resulted from dismissal of the HOA case in which the trial judge directed the parties to arbitrate in lieu of a jury trial, under the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions that governed the community. The Court of Appeals decided the case on its merits on November 7, 2013, and its decision can be found at 2013 WL 6502659. (Note: this presently unpublished opinion may be subject to further appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.) The case resulted from an attempt by the HOA’s counsel to amend the mandatory arbitration provisions of the declarations before it filed suit. This amendment process took the form of soliciting signature votes of homeowners on a revocation resolution to repeal the specific provisions of the declarations that provided mandatory, binding arbitration as the sole remedy for disputes between the HOA and the developer and/or general contractor. The declarations required that 67% of homeowners vote in favor of amendment in order to modify the declarations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Berkeley W. Mann, Jr., Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Mann may be reached at mann@hhmrlaw.com

    How Data Drives the Future of Design

    April 11, 2022 —
    Data has become the currency of modern society. It is the most abundantly generated product of the 21st century. Every action in our lives, from asking for directions using Google Maps to liking a post on social media, produces data that is being mined in a variety of imaginative and profitable ways. If our daily actions generate an avalanche of information, how much data could the design, construction, and operation of a building produce? Sketches and drawings, simulations and building analyses, BIM models, construction logistics and procurement, post-occupancy data gathered by sensors, and 3D scans all produce an abundance of data. It is, therefore, unfortunate that the adoption of Big Data and Cloud Computing in the building industry is substantially less developed than in other fields. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Marcin Kosicki, AEC Business

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    May 16, 2018 —
    In All Green Electric v. Security National Ins. Co. (No. B279456, filed 3/19/18, ord. pub. 4/17/18), a California appeals court ruled that the impaired property exclusion barred coverage for a claim based on the insured’s failure to tighten a loose bolt that resulted in stray magnetic fields interfering with operation of an MRI machine and allegedly threatening the health of personnel. All Green was an electrical contractor hired to perform wiring for an MRI unit installation. Stray magnetic fields interfered with the unit’s operation. Efforts to remediate the problem included installing shielding and ultimately relocating the unit to another room. An expert finally determined that a bolt left loose by All Green was causing the magnetic field, which disappeared when the bolt was properly tightened. The facility sought damages for negligence, including costs for unnecessary modifications and repairs, payments to outside sources for substitute mammography testing, operational costs and expenses, damage to reputation, lost profits, and the loss of an HMO contract. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of