BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expert
    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


    KY Mining Accident Not a Covered Occurrence Under Commercial General Liability Policy

    Electronic Signatures On Contracts: Are They Truly Compliant?

    Insurer Need Not Pay for Rejected Defense When No Reservation of Rights Issued

    Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

    Feds, County Seek Delay in Houston $7B Road Widening Over Community Impact

    Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    Failure to Allege Property Damage Within Policy Period Defeats Insured's Claim

    Want More Transit (and Federal Funding)? Build Housing That Supports It

    A Court-Side Seat: NWP 12 and the Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Get Forced Vacations, while a Potential Violation of the Eighth Amendment Isn’t Going Anywhere

    The Colorado Construction Defect Reform Act Explained

    An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

    Navigating Construction Contracts in the Energy Sector – Insights from Sheppard Mullin’s Webinar Series

    Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

    Injury to Employees Endorsement Eliminates Coverage for Insured Employer

    Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied

    New York Appellate Court Affirms 1966 Insurance Policy Continues to Cover WTC Asbestos Claims

    EEOC Suit Alleges Site Managers Bullied Black Workers on NY Project

    Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

    Best Practices for ESI Collection in Construction Litigation

    Reasonableness of Liquidated Damages Determined at Time of Contract (or, You Can’t Look Back Again)

    Recovering For Inflation On Federal Contracts: Recent DOD Guidance On Economic Price Adjustment Clauses

    EPA Can't Evade Enviro Firm's $2.7M Cleanup Site Pay Claim, US Court Says

    Water Backup Payment Satisfies Insurer's Obligation to Cover for Rain Damage

    ASCE Statement on National Dam Safety Awareness Day - May 31

    Scaffolding Purchase Suggests No New Building for Board of Equalization

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

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

    OSHA Set to Tag More Firms as Severe Violators Under New Criteria

    Lease-Leaseback Fight Continues

    Enerpac Plays Critical Role in Industry-changing Discovery for Long Span Bridges at The University of Nebraska-Lincoln

    Ambitious Building Plans in Boston

    Cal/OSHA-Approved Changes to ETS Will Take Effect May 6, 2022

    Court of Appeals Finds Additional Insured Coverage Despite “Care, Custody or Control” Exclusion

    Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Is Still in Trouble, Two Major Reviews Say

    Wyoming Supreme Court Picks a Side After Reviewing the Sutton Rule

    California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

    Insured's Remand of Bad Faith Action Granted

    The Ever-Growing Thicket Of California Civil Code Section 2782

    CDC Issues Moratorium on Residential Evictions Through 2020

    BHA Expands Construction Experts Group

    Uniformity in Florida’s Construction Bond Laws Brings About Fairness for the Industry

    Jobsite Safety, Workforce Shortage Drive Innovation in Machine Automation

    We've Surveyed Video Conferencing Models to See Who Fits the CCPA Bill: Here's What We Found

    AB 685 and COVID-19 Workplace Exposure: New California Notice and Reporting Requirements of COVID Exposure Starting January 1, 2021

    Google, Environmentalists and University Push Methane-Leak Detection

    The Sounds of Silence: Pennsylvania’s Sutton Rule

    Insurer Must Pay Portions of Arbitration Award Related to Faulty Workmanship

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 4: Coverage for Supply Chain Related Losses

    Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

    Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards
    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

    CGL Policy May Not Cover Cybersecurity and Data-Related Losses

    March 25, 2024 —
    The construction industry, like many other industries, has experienced an increased reliance on, and implementation of, technology in the past few years. Smart phones and tablets are used on most project sites, computers are an integral part of the planning process, and various software programs are used throughout the construction process. Likewise, much of the machinery and equipment used during construction (e.g., total stations, trucks, tower cranes) is interconnected, and in some cases, operated or monitored remotely.1 With an increase in technology comes a risk of cybersecurity and data-related losses. Many large businesses purchase Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance and assume cybersecurity and data-related losses are covered. Unfortunately, this is generally not the case. CGL policies typically cover three general types of damage: bodily injury, property damage, and advertising injury. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Susana Arce, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Arce may be contacted at SArce@sdvlaw.com

    Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company

    December 02, 2015 —
    Benjamin Franklin may never have been President but he’s better known than most of them. Not least of all for his pithy quotes on a wide range of subjects:
  • On personal finance – “A penny saved is a penny earned.”
  • On education – “Tell me and I forget, teach me and I remember, involve me and I learn.”
  • On getting real – “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”
  • On guests – “Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days.”
  • On lawyers – “A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats.”
  • On beer – “In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria.”
  • But if you were to pick one theme that seems to recur the most in Franklin’s quotes, it would be productivity:
  • “Time is money.”
  • “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”
  • “Never leave that till tomorrow which you can do today.”
  • “Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man happy, wealthy and wise.”
  • But, as the next case, Grebow v. Mercury Insurance Company, Case No. B261172, California Court of Appeals for the Second District (October 21, 2015), illustrates, sometimes the most efficient way of doing things may not necessarily be the most financially prudent way of doing things. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    2016 Hawaii Legislature Enacts Five Insurance-Related Bills

    May 12, 2016 —
    The 2016 Hawaii legislative session passed five insurance-related bills. Bills that have been enacted are the following: HB 260 - The bill establishes motor vehicle insurance requirements for transportation network companies and drivers that will take effect on September 1, 2016. The Insurance Commissioner is directed to examine the effects of this measure on personal motor vehicle insurance policy rates in the State and submit an annual report to the Legislature. The bill will sunset on September 1, 2021. The measure has been transmitted to the Governor for signature. HB 1705 - Electronic insurance cards, in addition to paper cards, are permitted by the bill. The card serves as proof of insurance for motor vehicles and is to be carried in the vehicle at all times. The legislation has been forwarded to the Governor for signature. 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

    Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

    April 15, 2015 —
    In Ong v. Fire Insurance Exchange (No. B252773, filed 4/3/15), a California appeals court ruled that a vacancy exclusion limited to damage caused by “vandalism or malicious mischief” did not bar coverage for damage to a vacant property caused by a warming fire purposely started by a transient that got out of control and spread to other parts of the property. In Ong, the insured’s rental premises had been vacated by tenants and the utilities turned off. Nearly two years later, the insured submitted a claim for fire damage that had just occurred. An investigator reported finding signs that a squatter had been living in the building, stating that: “[I]t appears the fire may have been initiated as the result of an uncontrolled warming fire started by an unauthorized inhabitant.” The investigator found firewood and a mattress, and concluded that holes burned in the floor were the result of the squatter attempting to throw burning wood out the door when the fire got out of control. The policy excluded vandalism as follows: “We do not cover direct or indirect loss from: . . . 4. Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days . . . just before the loss. A dwelling under construction is not considered vacant.” The term “Vandalism” was not defined in the policy. The insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion, stating: “Our investigation indicates that this loss was the result of vandalism. A trespasser entered the vacant dwelling and intentionally set a fire on the kitchen floor.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick and Colin T. Murphy Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Judge Sentences Roofing Contractor Owner in Florida PPP Fraud Case

    July 25, 2021 —
    A federal judge in Fort Myers, Fla., sentenced Casey David Crowther, 35, the owner of a successful Florida roofing contracting company, to 37 months in prison for using fictitious employee lists to obtain a $2.7-million federal pandemic-aid loan and then purchasing a $689,000 boat with the funds. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Duty to Defend Sorted Between Two Insurers Based Upon Lease and Policies

    November 02, 2017 —
    Two insurers disagreed on which was responsible for defense costs in the underlying personal injury suit against the insured. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158480 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2017). Knerr Group, Inc. lease property to Podcon, Inc. pursuant to a written lease. A man named Anthony Postell suffered an injury in an accident on the premises during the term of the lease. Postell filed a personal injury action against Knerr and Podcon, among others. Nautilus provided a defense to Knerr in the Postell case pursuant to a policy Nautilus issued to Knerr. Podcon was insured by Westfield. 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

    A Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette Doctrine

    May 02, 2022 —
    “The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine” – Plutarch And grind they do . . . slowly. For long time readers of the California Construction Law Blog you may recall a case we reported on over three years ago in 2018 – Sandoval v. Qualcomm Incorporated – a rather sad case about a severely injured employee of an electrical subcontractor with an even more surprisingly ending. In Sandoval, the 4th District Court of Appeals affirmed a $7 million judgment against project owner Qualcomm Incorporated in which a jury found that Qualcomm was liable under the Privette doctrine for injuries sustained by the employee who was severely burned over one third of his body by an “arc flash” from a live circuit breaker. The Court of Appeals, in a surprising decision, upheld the verdict holding that Qualcomm was liable even through: (1) Qualcomm had informed the electrical subcontractor that certain live circuit breakers were energized; (2) Qualcomm had not authorized the lower-tiered contractor to remove a panel that resulted in the arc flash; and (3) employees of Qualcomm were not in the room when the accident happened. Fast forward three years to September 2021. Qualcomm attorneys petition the California Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. And the Supreme Court granted review. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law

    December 22, 2019 —
    The Third Circuit ruled on Friday that differing “occurrence” definitions can have materially different meanings in the context of whether product defect claims constitute an “occurrence” triggering coverage under general liability insurance policies. The Court held in Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, that product claims against Sapa may be covered under policies that define an “occurrence” as an accident resulting in bodily injury or property damage “neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” However, the Court affirmed that coverage was not triggered under policies lacking the “expected” or “intended” limitation, reasoning that, under those policies, there was no question that the intentional manufacturing of Sapa’s product was too foreseeable to amount to an “accident.” The coverage dispute arose from an underlying action in which Marvin, a window manufacturer, alleged that, between 2000 and 2010, Sapa sold it roughly 28 million defective aluminum window extrusions. Marvin alleged that the extrusions, which are metal frames that hold glass window panes in place, began to oxidize and break down shortly after they were installed, causing Marvin to incur substantial costs to fix and replace them. Marvin sued Sapa in 2010 in Minnesota federal court, and the parties settled in 2013. Sapa sought coverage for the settlement from its eight general liability insurers for the period implicated by Marvin’s allegations. The insurers denied coverage and Sapa brought suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of