BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut architectural 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


    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (09/06/23) – Nonprofit Helping Marginalized Groups, Life Sciences Taking over Office Space, and Housing Affordability Hits New Low

    A Court-Side Seat: Appeals and Agency Developments at the Close of 2020

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/8/24) – Hotel Labor Disputes, a Congressional Real Estate Caucus and Freddie Mac’s New Policies

    Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed

    Good and Bad News on Construction Employment

    SNC-Lavalin’s Former Head of Construction Pleads Guilty to Bribery, Money Laundering

    Don’t Sign a Contract that Doesn’t Address Covid-19 (Or Pandemics and Epidemics)

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured

    Federal Court Enforces “Limits” and “Most We Will Pay” Clauses in Additional Insured Endorsement

    “Made in America Week” Highlights Requirements, Opportunities for Contractors and Suppliers

    Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania

    New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

    President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Irma

    Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects

    United States Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements

    New Becker & Poliakoff Attorney to Expand Morristown Construction Litigation Practice

    Trade Contract Revisions to Address COVID-19

    Important New Reporting Requirement for Some Construction Defect Settlements

    Court Concludes That COVID-19 Losses Can Qualify as “Direct Physical Loss”

    The Death of Retail and Legal Issues

    Six Reasons to Use Regular UAV Surveys on Every Construction Project

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces Jessica Garland as Its Newest Partner

    Strategy for Enforcement of Dispute Resolution Rights

    Flow-Down Clauses Can Drown Your Project

    Construction Up in United States

    California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision

    Coverage Denied Where Occurrence Takes Place Outside Coverage Territory

    Arbitration and Mediation: What’s the Difference? What to Expect.

    BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

    No Coverage for Sink Hole Loss

    Potential Extension of the Statutes of Limitation and Repose for Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    Wildfire Is Efficient Proximate Cause of Moisture Reaching Expansive Soils Under Residence

    Flood Sublimits Do Not Apply to Loss Caused by Named Windstorm

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    Six Inducted into California Homebuilding Hall of Fame

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (3/6/24) – Steep Drop in Commercial Real Estate Investment, Autonomous Robots Being Developed for Construction Projects, and Treasury Department Proposes Regulation for Real Estate Professionals

    Noteworthy Construction Defect Cases for 1st Qtr 2014

    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

    Cincinnati Team Secures Summary Judgment for Paving Company in Trip-and-Fall Case

    Construction Executives Should Be Dusting Off Employee Handbooks

    New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims

    Exclusion for Construction of Condominiums Includes Faulty Construction of Retaining Wall

    Damage to Plaintiffs' Home Caused By Unmoored Boats Survives Surface Water Exclusion

    No Interlocutory Appeals of "Garden-Variety" Contract Disputes

    Claim for Punitive Damages Based on Insurers' Alleged Bad Faith Business Practices Fails

    A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending
    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

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    March 01, 2012 —

    A Cleveland condo association has sued the developer of their building, claiming that construction defects resulted in water intrusion. The K&D Group, which still owns forty units in the 160-unit building, claim that it’s a maintenance issue that they’d like to see fixed, but it’s their responsibility as the developer. Doug Price, CEO of K&D calls it a “frivolous lawsuit.” He blames a “hostile board” and told The Plain Dealer “there’s simple maintenance that they refuse to do.”

    An outside company evaluated Stonebridge Towers. According to the condo board’s lawyer, Laura Hauser, the building design and construction are to blame for the water intrusion. Hauser said that the board’s “goal through this litigation is to find a resolution for the association, the building and the owners.”

    David Kaman, a Cleveland attorney not involved in the lawsuit, told the Plain Dealer that construction litigation in the Cleveland area had fallen off from 2007, but he sees it on the rise, which he attributes to cost-cutting on recently finished projects. “If an owner moves in and two years later the wallpaper needs to be replaced because the wall is leaking, that’s a construction defect.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Caltrans Reviewing Airspace Program in Aftermath of I-10 Fire

    July 02, 2024 —
    The California Dept. of Transportation has indefinitely suspended approving any new leases, subleases, and renewals of open storage properties in the wake of a fire that damaged a section of Interstate 10 through downtown Los Angeles last fall. Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Challenging Enforceability of Liquidated Damages (In Federal Construction Context)

    March 11, 2024 —
    A recent summary judgment opinion from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), Appeals Of – BCI Construction USA, Inc.,ASBCA No. 6257, 2024 WL 773324 (2024), contains a worthy discussion regarding a contractor’s challenge to the government’s assessment of liquidated damages, specifically the enforceability of the liquidated damages rate. Although this challenge is in the federal context, this discussion would be more expansive and apply outside of the federal context. When dealing with the enforceability of a liquidated damages, the ASBCA “examines whether the liquidated damages amount ‘is extravagant, or disproportionate to the amount of property loss, as to show that compensation was not the object aimed at or as to imply fraud, mistake, circumvention or oppression.” Appeals of – BCI Construction USA, Inc. (citation omitted). 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

    California Case Is a Reminder That Not All Insurance Policies Are Alike Regarding COVID-19 Losses

    April 05, 2021 —
    A recent case from the Central District of California reminds us that not all insurance policies are alike. Depending on the particular policy, losses from the COVID-19 outbreak could qualify as property damage and therefore could be recoverable under an all-risk insurance policy. COVID-19 has in many cases imposed significant costs on contractors, and in a host of ways. Contractors’ attempts to recover these costs from owners or insurers have at times been frustrated by contractual or policy language written after a lengthy time, during which the risk of a pandemic on the scale of COVID-19 was not as much of a concern as it is now. This has led contractors to explore new, often creative legal theories in their attempts to recover costs flowing from COVID-19. A recent Complaint filed in the Central District of California focuses on all-risk property insurance policies and the potential for contractors who have purchased such policies to classify contamination from COVID-19 as an insurable property loss. In AECOM v. Zurich Insurance Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00237-JAK-MRW (C.D. Cal), a contractor purchased “all-risk” property insurance from Zurich. This policy covered “economic losses from all risks not expressly excluded.” According to the Complaint, the presence of COVID-19 on its properties “physically alter[ed] air, airspace, and surfaces preventing… (the contractor) from using its properties for their intended purpose and function.” Reprinted courtesy of Neal I. Sklar, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Joshua A. Morehouse, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Sklar may be contacted at nsklar@pecklaw.com Mr. Morehouse may be contacted at jmorehouse@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    General Release of Contractor Upheld Despite Knowledge of Construction Defects

    February 27, 2019 —
    Ah, the elusive Lepus Cornutus, commonly known as the Jackalope. Rarely seen, we may have one in SI 59 LLC v. Variel Warner Ventures, LLC, Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B285086 (November 15, 2018), an interesting case involving a developer, a contractor, a general release, and Civil Code section 1688. SI 59 LLC v. Variel Warner Ventures, LLC In 2005, Variel Warner Ventures, LLC (Variel Warner) entered into a construction contract with Verdugo Management & Investment, Inc. (Verdugo) to construct improvements at an 85 unit apartment complex. Under the terms of the contract, Verdugo agreed to construction the improvements in a good and workmanlike manner in strict compliance with all drawings and specifications and to comply with all laws. It didn’t. The work was defectively flashed, counterflashed, and waterproofed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Federal Court Asks South Dakota Supreme Court to Decide Whether Injunction Costs Are “Damages,” Adopts Restatement’s Position on Providing “Inadequate” Defense

    August 13, 2019 —
    Do costs associated with complying with an injunction constitute covered “damages?” The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota recently certified that question to the South Dakota Supreme Court, in Sapienza v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, No. 3:18-CV-03015-RAL, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84973 (D.S.D. May 17, 2019). If the South Dakota Supreme Court takes on the question, it will become one of the few highest state courts to do so.[1] The Sapienza case is also notable because the court adopted § 12 of the Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance (Restatement) regarding an insurer’s potential liability for providing an “inadequate” defense. In doing so, the Sapienza court joins a growing list of courts to rely upon or cite to the Restatement. The Sapienza case arose out of an underlying dispute between residential neighbors over the size and location of the Sapienzas’ new house they built in a historic district in Sioux Falls, SD. The newly-built house allegedly prevented the neighbors from using their fireplace, blocked natural light the neighbors previously enjoyed, and decreased the value of the neighbors’ house. The neighbors sought a permanent injunction requiring the Sapienzas to modify or relocate the house. The Sapienzas’ homeowners’ insurer provided them with defense counsel, but the insurer instructed the Sapienzas that it would not cover any costs associated with an injunction as such costs did not constitute covered “damages.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Anderson may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

    January 05, 2017 —
    Washington Courts allow an insurer to determine its duty to defend an insured against a lawsuit based only on the face of the complaint and the limitations of the insurance policy. This is otherwise known as the “eight corners” rule (four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). In other words, the insurance company is not permitted to rely on facts extrinsic to the complaint in order to deny its duty to defend an insured. See Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 751, 763 (2002). The laws in Washington provide greater protection to the insured over the insurer when it comes to the insurer’s duty to defend. The duty to defend a claim is triggered if a claim could “conceivably” be covered under the policy. See Woo v. Fireman’s Insurance, 161 Wn.2d 43 (2007). If there is any ambiguity in a policy with regard to coverage, the ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the insured. As a result, contractors in Washington regularly tender claims or potential claims to their insurers even when damage has not occurred but will occur in the imminent future. Especially in the context of construction defect cases, a contractor will tender such a claim to its insurer to trigger the broad duty of the insurer to provide a defense. We also regularly recommend this to our contractor clients. For example, if a building owner serves a contractor with a claim that the construction and installation of a window system will imminently cause leaks and corrosion, we would recommend that the contractor tender the claim to its commercial general liability insurer. Washington courts have found a duty to defend when there are allegations in the complaint that covered damages will occur in the imminent future. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com

    Construction Defect Fund Approved for Bankrupt Las Vegas Builder

    February 11, 2013 —
    A federal bankruptcy judge has given his approval to a fund set up to settle potential construction defect claims as a Las Vegas home builder, America West Development, works its way out of bankruptcy. The U.S. Trustee had objected to the trust fund's structure, and claimed that it was insufficiently independent from America West. Judge Mike Nakagawa found no legal objections to the trust. The trust will be initially funded from $1.5 million of the $10 million that Lawrence Canarelli will be paying to buy back the company he founded. Construction defect claims against the company could possibly reach $20.9 million. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that the fund "could pick up funding from certain legal claims and insurance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of