BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witness
    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


    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Texas Supreme Court Rules That Subsequent Purchaser of Home Is Bound by Original Homeowner’s Arbitration Agreement With Builder

    UK Construction Defect Suit Lost over One Word

    New York’s 2022 Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act: Significant Amendments to the C.P.L.R.

    Homeowner Alleges Pool Construction Is Defective

    Recent Florida Legislative Changes Shorten Both Statute of Limitation ("SOL") and Statute of Repose ("SOR") for Construction Defect Claims

    Florida Lien Law and Substantial Compliance vs. Strict Compliance

    Pushing the Edge: Crews Carve Dam Out of Remote Turkish Mountains

    Minnesota Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade for the Second Time

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 01/26/22

    Morrison Bridge Allegedly Crumbling

    California Ranks As Leading State for Green Building in 2022

    Five Construction Payment Issues—and Solutions

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Unjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding Contract

    Business and Professions Code Section 7031, Demurrers, and Just How Much You Can Dance

    Top Developments March 2024

    Illinois Joins the Pack on Defective Construction as an Occurrence

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld

    Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Wharf Holdings to Sell Entire Sino-Ocean Stake for $284 Million

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered

    NY State Appellate Court Holds That Pollution Exclusions Bar Duty to Defend Under Liability Policies for Claims Alleging Exposure to PFAS

    Insurer's Failure to Settle Does Not Justify Multiple Damages under Unfair Claims Settlement Law

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

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

    ASCE Statement on House Passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    The Final Frontier Opens Up New Business Opportunities for Private Contractors

    Ohio Court Refuses to Annualize Multi-Year Policies’ Per Occurrence Limits

    Delaware Court Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2023

    Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

    Is the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative Act

    Court Affirms Duty to Defend Additional Insured Contractor

    Effective Allocation of Damages for Federal Contract Claims

    Antitrust Walker Process Claims Not Covered Under Personal Injury Coverage for Malicious Prosecution

    Express Warranty Trumping Spearin’s Implied Warranty

    A Court-Side Seat: A Poultry Defense, a Houston Highway and a CERCLA Consent Decree that Won’t Budge

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

    Exponential Acceleration—Interview with Anders Hvid

    Measures Landlords and Property Managers Can Take in Response to a Reported COVID-19 Infection

    No Conflict in Successive Representation of a Closely-Held Company and Its Insiders Where Insiders Already Possess Company’s Confidential Information

    Disaster-Relief Bill Stalls in Senate

    Big Builder’s Analysis of the Top Ten Richest Counties
    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

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Finds Insured AOAO Not Liable for Securing Inadequate Insurance

    March 04, 2024 —
    The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the trial court's finding that the insured Association of Apartment Owners (AOAO) was not liable for securing a policy with inadequate coverage. AOAO Queen Emma Gardens, et al v. Wa, 2023 Haw. App. LEXIS 400 (Haw. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2023). In October 2002, the Was purchased a condominium located in the Queen Emma Gardens Condominium. The AOAO's bylaws provided that it would procure and maintain insurance "to insure the Board, the Association, and each apartment owner against claims for personal injury, death, and property damage arising out of the condition of the property or activities thereon . . ." The AOAO secured a CGL policy from Insurance Association, Inc., with coverage limits for bodily injury at $1,000,000 and an umbrella policy providing an additional $5,000,000 of coverage. Each of the policies "insured each individual insurance owner of the insured condominium, but only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or repair of that portion of the premises which is not reserved for that unit owner's exclusive use or occupancy." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    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

    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    May 10, 2012 —

    McGrawHill Construction reports that 17 percent of new homes and remodels in 2011 were done with green building practices. Their report estimates that by 2016, this will rise to 29 to 38 percent of the market for home construction and remodeling.

    Consumers see the green buildings as more desirable, particularly where they are more energy efficient. Two thirds of builders noted their customers were interested in features that would lower the energy use of their homes. Consumers also feel that green building materials are more durable and see green homes as higher quality.

    Read the full story…

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

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

    July 18, 2011 —

    Acting on the case of Albano v. Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that Arizona’s eight-year statute of repose applies. The case was referred to the court by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which had asked for a clarification of Arizona law. The case focused on three questions:

    1. Does the filing of a motion for class certification in an Arizona court toll the statute of limitations for individuals, who are included within the class, to file individual causes of action involving the same defendants and the same subject matter? 2. If so, does this class-action tolling doctrine apply to statutes of repose, and more specifically, to the statute of repose for construction defects set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 12-552? 3. If the doctrine applies to statutes of repose, and specifically § 12-552, may a court weigh the equities of the case in determining whether, and to what extent, an action is tolled?

    The litigation at hand has a lengthy history, starting with a case referred to as “Hoffman” in 2003. The Albano plaintiffs were not able to join in Hoffman, and they filed their own lawsuit in 2006. An additional lawsuit was filed by the Albano plaintiffs in 2007. The courts decided that the Albano plaintiffs’ lawsuit was untimely.

    The Arizona Supreme Court concluded that the statute of repose was the appropriate standard for this case. They noted that “the eight-year statute of repose period began to run on November 6, 1997, the date of the Town of Gilbert’s final inspection. Albano II was filed on November 5, 2007.”

    The court found that the plaintiffs had waited too long for start their suit. As a result, they found it unnecessary to answer the first or third questions. Justice A. John Pelander of the Arizona Supreme Court wrote the opinion, dated June 30, 2011.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Sierra Pacific v. Bradbury Goes Unchallenged: Colorado’s Six-Year Statute of Repose Begins When a Subcontractor’s Scope of Work Ends

    November 03, 2016 —
    It’s official: the October 20, 2016 deadline to petition for certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals on its decision in Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc. v. Bradbury has passed, so it appears that decision will stand. In Sierra Pacific, the Court of Appeals held as a matter of first impression that the statute of repose for a general contractor to sue a subcontractor begins to run when a subcontractor’s scope of work is substantially complete, regardless of the status of the overall project. Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc. v. Bradbury, 2016 COA 132, ¶ 28, ___ P.3d ___. The Court of Appeals interpreted the statute of repose in C.R.S. section 13-80-104, which requires that “all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of any improvement to real property” must be brought within six years of substantial completion of that improvement. C.R.S. § 13-80-104(1)(a). Recognizing that “an improvement may be [to] a discrete component of an entire project” under Shaw Construction, LLC v. United Builder Services, Inc., 296 P.3d 145 (Colo. App. 2012), the Court of Appeals determined that “a subcontractor has substantially completed its role in the improvement at issue when it finishes working on the improvement.” Sierra Pac., 2016 COA at ¶¶ 20, 28. In doing so, it rejected Sierra Pacific’s argument that the statute could be tolled under the repair doctrine “while others worked to repair [the subcontractor’s] ‘improper installation work and flawed repair work.’” Id. at ¶ 29. Because six years had undisputedly passed since the subcontractor completed its scope of work when Sierra Pacific filed suit against it, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting the subcontractor’s motion for summary judgment under Section 13-80-104(1)(a). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
    Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

    Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

    July 01, 2019 —
    A third-party claimant may bring a common law bad faith claim against a defendant’s liability insurer. Mccullough v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, 2019 WL 2076192, *2 (S.D.Fla. 2019). “A bad faith claim may be brought by a third party absent an assignment from the [defendant] insured.” Id. This can only be done in the third-party bad faith context with the argument that the insurer’s “bad faith” conduct resulted in a judgment against the defendant-insured in excess of the policy limits. However, in any third-party bad faith claim (and, really, bad faith claim in general), coverage must first be determined under the policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Water Leak Covered for First Thirteen Days

    April 11, 2018 —
    The Florida Court of Appeals recently held the policy's exclusion for repeated water seepage over a period of fourteen days or more does not exclude loss caused by the seepage for the first thirteen days. Hicks v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 2616 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2018). 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

    Complying With Data Breach Regulations in the Construction Industry

    November 24, 2019 —
    Recent data breach incidents—like the massive Capital One cyberattack, where a former employee accessed more than 100 million customer accounts and credit card applications—have left many users questioning how safe their information really is in the hands of companies. There is reason to be concerned. More than 4.1 billion records were exposed in nearly 4,000 data breaches reported in the first half of 2019 alone, according to the 2019 MidYear QuickView Data Breach Report. Construction companies are not immune. As the industry becomes more reliant on technology—using augmented reality, Building Information Modeling and drones on construction sites, for example—construction companies are becoming greater targets for hackers looking to gain a financial or strategic advantage. Instead of assuming a company will never experience a breach (or rather, denying that it will ever happen), it’s important to be aware of possible threats and establish data breach response policies to minimize potentially catastrophic fallout. Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Bilbrey, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Bilbrey may be contacted at rbilbrey@biaprotect.com