BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofing
    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


    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Collapse Coverage Fails

    Landmark San Diego Hotel Settles Defects Suit for $6.4 Million

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    Quick Note: Not In Contract With The Owner? Serve A Notice To Owner.

    Repeated Use of Defective Fireplace Triggers Duty to Defend Even if Active Fire Does Not Break Out Until After End of Policy Period

    Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line

    Presidential Executive Order 14008: The Climate Crisis Order

    Additional Insured Obligations and the Underlying Lawsuit

    Bad Welds Doom Art Installation at Central Park

    Substantial Completion Explained: What Contractors & Owners Should Know

    Construction Defect Claim Not Timely Filed

    Construction Contract Provisions that Should Pique Your Interest

    Congratulations 2019 DE, NJ and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Contractors Must Register with the L&I Prior to Offering or Performing Work, or Risk Having their Breach of Contract Case Dismissed

    Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    Demanding a Reduction in Retainage

    How Helsinki Airport Uses BIM to Create the Best Customer Experience

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    Performance Bond Surety Takeover – Using Terminated Contractor To Complete The Work

    How to Defend Stucco Allegations

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    New Jersey Firm’s Fee Action Tossed for not Filing Substitution of Counsel

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (08/15/23) – Manufacturing Soars with CHIPS Act, New Threats to U.S. Infrastructure and AI Innovation for One Company

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose in June at a Slower Pace

    Governor Murphy Approves Legislation Implementing Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey

    Crane Firm Pulled Off NYC Projects Following Multiple Incidents

    Whether Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is an Occurrence Creates Ambiguity

    San Francisco OKs Revamped Settling Millennium Tower Fix

    Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

    How to Make the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive

    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

    Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award

    California Supreme Court Rules Developers can be Required to Include Affordable Housing

    New York’s Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act Imposes Increased Disclosure Requirements On Defendants at the Beginning of Lawsuits

    Intellectual Property And Employment Law Best Practices: Are You Covering Your Bases In Protecting Construction-Related Trade Secrets?

    Determining Occurrence for Injury Under Commercial General Liability Policy Without Applying “Trigger Theory”

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Steven Cvitanovic to Present at NASBP Virtual Seminar

    Sales of U.S. New Homes Decline After Record May Revision

    Homebuilders Call for Housing Tax Incentives

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Forecast Sunny for Solar Contractors in California

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to Watch

    How the Science of Infection Can Make Cities Stronger

    Inverse Condemnation and Roadwork

    Massive Fire Destroys Building, Firefighters Rescue Construction Worker

    Insurer in Bad Faith For Refusing to Commit to Appraisal
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Leveraging the 50-State Initiative, Connecticut and Maine Team Secure Full Dismissal of Coverage Claim for Catastrophic Property Loss

    March 23, 2020 —
    On behalf of Gordon & Rees’ surplus lines insurer client, Hartford insurance coverage attorneys Dennis Brown, Joseph Blyskal, and Regen O’Malley, with the assistance of associates Kelcie Reid, Alexandria McFarlane, and Justyn Stokely, and Maine counsel Lauren Thomas, secured a full dismissal of a $15 million commercial property loss claim before the Maine Business and Consumer Court on January 23, 2020. The insured, a wood pellet manufacturer, sustained catastrophic fire loss to its plant in 2018 – just one day after its surplus lines policy expired. Following the insurer’s declination of coverage for the loss, the wood pellet manufacturer brought suit against both its agent, claiming it had failed to timely secure property coverage, as well as the insurer, alleging that it had had failed to comply with Maine’s statutory notice requirements. The surplus lines insurer agreed to extend the prior policy several times by endorsement, but declined to do so again. Notably, the insured alleged that the agent received written notice of the non-renewal prior to the policy’s expiration 13 days before the policy’s expiration. However, the insured (as well as the agent by way of a cross-claim) asserted that the policy remained effective at the time of the loss as the insured did not receive direct notice of the decision not to renew coverage and notice to the agent was not timely. Although Maine’s Attorney General and Superintendent intervened in support of the insured’s and agent’s argument that the statute’s notice provision applied such that coverage would still be owed under the expired policy, Gordon & Rees convinced the Court otherwise. At issue, specifically, was whether the alleged violation of the 14-day notice provision in Section 2009-A of the Surplus Lines Law (24-A M.R.S. § 2009-A), which governs the “cancellation and nonrenewal” of surplus lines policies, required coverage notwithstanding the expiration of the policy. The insured, the agent, and the State of Maine intervenors argued that “cancellation or nonrenewal” was sufficient to trigger the statute’s notice requirement, and thus Section 2009-A required the insurer to notify the insured directly of nonrenewal. In its motion to dismiss, Gordon & Rees argued on behalf of its client that Section 2009-A requires both “cancellation and nonrenewal” in order for the statute to apply. Since there was no cancellation in this case – only nonrenewal – Gordon & Rees argued that Section 2009-A is inapt and that the insurer is not obligated to provide the manufacturer with notice of nonrenewal. Alternatively, it argued that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Regen O'Malley, Gordon & Rees
    Ms. O'Malley may be contacted at romalley@grsm.com

    Failing to Release A Mechanics Lien Can Destroy Your Construction Business

    May 01, 2023 —
    Is the title to this article possibly true? Yes, absolutely! I have seen it happen. Let me tell you how it happens so you can avoid such a result. When contractors, subcontractors or suppliers in California construction projects are not paid they often record a mechanics lien on the property on which they worked. This is a customary accepted legal process for the claimant to secure its right to payment. The mechanics lien enables the claimant to eventually sell the property and obtain payment from the proceeds to the extent they remain unpaid. California Civil Code Section 8460 generally requires that a lawsuit to foreclose on a mechanics’ lien must be filed in court within ninety (90) days after the mechanics’ lien is recorded. If no lawsuit has been filed in court within this 90-day period, then the lien generally becomes unenforceable. Because the mechanics lien remains a cloud on the title to the property if not released, the lien claimant usually releases the mechanics lien if they have failed to meet the lawsuit deadline. Lien claimants will also release a lien and/or dismiss the foreclosure lawsuit in exchange for payment. It is rare that the property is actually sold to obtain payment. This is a brief description of the pathway to payment through the use of a mechanics lien. 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

    In Louisiana, Native Americans Struggle to Recover From Ida

    August 07, 2022 —
    Along Bayou Pointe-Au-Chien, La. (AP) -- Driving through her village along a southeastern Louisiana bayou, tribal official Cherie Matherne points out the remnants of house after house — including her own — wrecked nine months ago when Hurricane Ida roared through the Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe community. Beige trailers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and travel campers sit next to pilings that elevated homes 14 feet (4.3 meters) off the ground to protect them from flooding. But it was the wind that got them this time. For hours, the Category 4 hurricane tore off roofs and siding, ripped out insulation and scattered treasured belongings. It destroyed shrimp boats and tossed crab traps. “It’s going to take years before people can get back to their lives. The majority of people are still at a standstill,” said Matherne, the tribe’s cultural heritage and resiliency coordinator. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    UPDATE: ACS Obtains Additional $13.6 Million for General Contractor Client After $19.2 Million Jury Trial Victory

    June 27, 2022 —
    In March 2022, ACS obtained a $19.2 million jury verdict in favor of its general contractor client after a lengthy trial against the project owner. Since that time, ACS has successfully obtained awards through post-trial motion practice for an additional $13.6 million in favor of the general contractor. These awards increased to total judgment to more than $32 million. When moving to enter judgment on the jury verdict, ACS successfully argued for and obtained more than $5 million in prejudgment interest on the jury verdict to compensate the general contractor for having to go years without payment for work performed. ACS also successfully obtained a decree of foreclosure on its construction lien and incorporated language in the judgment requiring the owner to pay an additional $1.9 million in Washington State sales tax on the jury award. Finally, under the authority of the Washington construction lien statute (RCW 60.04.181), ACS sought to recover the attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the general contractor client during the course of litigation. ACS succeeded in obtaining an award for more than $6.6 million for various expenses and costs including ACS’s attorney fees, all the costs of hiring expert witnesses, costs and expenses related to subcontractors’ presentation of pass-through claims against the owner, and other litigation costs and expenses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Southwell may be contacted at wendy.wheatmccoy@acslawyers.com

    Tighter Requirements and a New Penalty for Owners of Vacant or Abandoned Storefronts in San Francisco

    June 18, 2019 —
    Ordinance 52-19 became effective in April 2019 and expands upon existing San Francisco Building Code registration requirements for “Vacant or Abandoned” “Commercial Storefronts.” A storefront becomes “Vacant or Abandoned” once it has been unoccupied for 30 days (among other earlier triggers for blighted or unsecured storefronts). A “Commercial Storefront” is broadly defined as “any area within a building that may be individually leased or rented for any purpose other than Residential Use as defined in Planning Code.” (See § 103.A.5.1 of the San Francisco Building Code.) So, a building that is 97% leased could still contain a Vacant or Abandoned Commercial Storefront, which would technically require registration under the Building Code. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matt Olhausen, Pillsbury
    Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    June 30, 2011 —

    One June 27, the US Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal from Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent had appealed a summary judgment granted to Titan Construction Company.

    Titan Construction had built condominiums for the Williamsburg Condominium Association, which later filed a construction defect lawsuit against Titan and other defendants. Titan settled with the developer, Kennydale, assigning its rights against Mid-Continent to Kennydale. Mid-Continent filed suit, claiming that “it had no obligation to indemnify or defend Titan, Kennydale, or various other defendants.” The district court found in favor of Mid-Continent, granting a summary judgment, concluding that Titan’s insurance covered “occurrences,” and none had taken place.

    On appeal, the court found that the negligent construction of the condominiums constituted an “occurrence” The case was remanded and the district court this time found in favor of Titan, “concluding that Mid-Continent failed to raise a triable issue as to the applicability of the remaining policy exclusions.

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now affirmed that decision and Titan’s summary judgment stands.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision

    August 27, 2013 —
    In 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that construction defects could count as “occurrences” under a general liability policy. John Watkins, writing in Law360, notes that the ruling “has potentially broad implications for Georgia insureds.” He goes on to look at a later Georgia Supreme Court case, in which the court reaffirmed its decision in the 2011 Hathaway case. In the 2013 case, Taylor Morrison Services Inc. v. HDI-Gerlins Ins., the court held that the property damage had to happen to something other than the work performed by the insured, and that a breaches of warranty without fraud claims may be covered. But Watkins notes that this points to “the continuing efforts of insurers to deny coverage for construction defects under CGL policies.” This overruled some of the past decisions of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Watkins noted that the Eleventh Circuit seemed to wonder about the scope of Hathaway, but with Taylor Morrison, “the Georgia Supreme Court provided a clearly stated response.” Looking at the implications, he gives an example in which if a window installer work causes a window to leak and the water intrusion damages a floor, the floor, but not the window would be covered. But he cautions, “the result may turn on the policy language and the particular facts.” In any case, he assures us that “coverage disputes regarding construction defects are sure to continue.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Commentary: How to Limit COVID-19 Related Legal Claims

    January 11, 2021 —
    We are 10 months into the global pandemic. Given the magnitude of additional costs and upended expectations and risk-allocation, we foresee a wave of disputes coming soon. Whether it is large or small depends heavily on how well project team members handle the COVID-19 project impacts now. Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lindsay, Crowell & Moring (ENR) and Meagan Bachman, Crowell & Moring (ENR) Ms. Bachman may be contacted at mbachman@crowell.com Mr. Lindsay may be contacted at joshlindsay@crowell.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of