BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness construction
    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


    When is Mediation Appropriate for Your Construction Case?

    Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

    Get to Know BJ Siegel: Former Apple Executive and Co-Founder of Juno

    Residential Mortgage Lenders and Servicers Beware of Changes to Rule 3002.1

    Case Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment Granted for BWB&O’s Client in Wrongful Death Case!

    OSHA Reinforces COVID Guidelines for the Workplace

    Fourth Circuit Issues New Ruling on Point Sources Under the CWA

    Summary Judgment in Favor of General Contractor Under Privette Doctrine Overturned: Lessons Learned

    Ex-Pemex CEO Denies Allegations of Involvement in Brazil Scandal

    OSHA Finalizes Rule on Crane Operator Qualification and Certification

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Benefits to Insureds Under Property Insurance Policy – Concurrent Cause Doctrine

    Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers

    Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions Into Waterlogged Miami?

    Concerns About On-the-job Safety Persist

    UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    Hawaii Bill Preserves Insurance Coverage in Lava Zones

    The Pandemic, Proposed Federal Privacy Regulation and the CCPA

    Insurer Must Pay Portions of Arbitration Award Related to Faulty Workmanship

    A Recap of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Summer Slate

    OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit

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

    A Survey of New Texas Environmental Laws

    July Sees Big Drop in Home Sales

    New California Construction Law for 2019

    6 Ways to Reduce Fire Safety Hazards in BESS

    Homebuilders Offer Hope for U.K. Economy

    Hunton Offers Amicus Support in First Circuit Review of “Surface Water” Under Massachusetts Law

    BHA’s Next MCLE Seminar in San Diego on July 25th

    Additional Insured Is Covered Under On-Going Operations Endorsement Despite Subcontractor's Completion of Work

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 4.3% in November

    Housing to Top Capital Spending in Next U.S. Growth Leg: Economy

    "Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

    Nevada’s Construction Defect Law

    BIOHM Seeks to Turn Plastic Waste into Insulation Material with Mushrooms

    Oregon Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Construction (Construction Defect) Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

    When is an Indemnification Provision Unenforceable?

    Unwrapped Pipes Lead to Flooding and Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/16/24) – Algorithms Affect the Rental Market, Robots Aim to Lower Construction Costs, and Gen Z Struggle to Find Their Own Space

    More Business Value from Drones with Propeller and Trimble – Interview with Rory San Miguel

    New OSHA Regulations on Confined Spaces in Construction

    President Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Requires a Viable Statutory Framework (PPP Statutes)[i]

    California Governor Signs SB 496 Amending California’s Anti-Indemnity Statute

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

    Keeping Detailed Records: The Best Defense to Constructive Eviction

    Partner John Toohey is Nominated for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!

    Defect Claims Called “Witch Hunt”
    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

    Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute

    December 17, 2015 —
    In Daniel v. Ford Motor Company (filed 12/02/15), the Ninth Circuit resolved a federal and state court split on the issue of whether consumers can sustain a breach of implied warranty claim under California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (aka the “lemon law” statute) for “latent” defects discovered after the warranty period has expired. Answering this question in the affirmative, the Ninth Circuit followed the holding in the California state appellate decision of Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co. 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 285 (2009), which definitively determined there is nothing in California’s lemon law that requires a consumer to discover a latent defect during the duration of the warranty. The underlying class action lawsuit was brought in federal district court by purchasers of Ford Focus vehicles. The plaintiffs alleged Ford was aware of, but failed to disclose, a rear suspension defect in the Focus that resulted in premature tire wear which can cause decreased vehicle control, catastrophic tire failure and drifting on wet or snowy roads. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims including violations of California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Ford successfully moved for summary judgment on all claims prompting an appeal. Reprinted courtesy of Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Subrogation 101 (and Why Should I Care?)

    July 16, 2023 —
    What is subrogation? Why am I being asked to waive it? Should I care? To answer that last question, let’s take a quick run at the first two. What Is Subrogation? “Subrogation” refers to the act of one person or party standing in the place of another person or party. It is a legal right held by most insurance carriers to pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss in order to recover the amount the insurance carrier paid the insured to cover the loss. This occurs when (i) the insurance carrier makes a payment on behalf of its insured as the result of a covered accident or injury, and then (ii) the insurer then seeks repayment from the at-fault party. Reprinted courtesy of Clark Thiel, Pillsbury and Alexis N. Wansac, Pillsbury Mr. Thiel may be contacted at clark.thiel@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Wansac may be contacted at alexis.wansac@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Homes Approved Despite being Too Close Together

    January 22, 2014 —
    ABC 7 reported that more than a dozen homes in Adams County, Colorado were inspected and approved by Building and Safety despite being built too close together. The problem was discovered by an inspector who cited a new home for being “4 inches too close to adjoining property.” Jim Williamette, the Adams County Chief Building Official told ABC 7, “It’s a fire issue for the separation of buildings.” The county may have solved the issue, according to ABC 7. Williamette stated that the properties “will be modified with fire-resistant windows” and combined with the “already-installed fire-resistant siding, the windows will satisfy the international building code.” Currently, the parties are in verbal agreement, and a “signed design proposal” is expected no later than January 21st. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mechanic’s Liens- Big Exception

    January 22, 2024 —
    Musings has discussed mechanic’s liens on numerous occasions. As we discussed in earlier posts, the general rule is that a mechanic’s lien jumps to the head of the line of liens when filed. This is true in most instances. In the typical case, a contractor puts up a building and, when the owner refuses payment, it files a mechanic’s lien that takes priority over all other liens on that property, including the construction loan deed of trust (or mortgage, depending on your state’s property laws). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

    October 28, 2015 —
    It's tempting to conclude from the climate change debate that all that carbon dioxide in the air is making everybody dumber. In fact, all that carbon dioxide in the air is making everybody dumber. Workers showed diminished cognitive functioning after spending several hours in office air that had normal levels of CO2 and chemical pollutants and ordinary ventilation, in a study published this week in Environmental Health Perspectives. Researchers tinkered with the levels of carbon dioxide and volatile organic compounds (airborne chemicals) and the amount of outside air pumped in, while the subjects did their regular work, though at a Syracuse University lab. The levels were chosen to simulate the indoor environment of conventional offices, LEED Platinum "green" buildings, and green buildings with an elevated outdoor ventilation rate ("Green+"). The 24 participants, including architects, engineers, and marketing professionals, were exposed to different conditions on different days during the six-day study, not knowing of the changes. At 3 pm every day, the researchers administered computer-based cognitive tests of strategy-setting and focus, for example, and recorded the results and the kind of air the participants had been breathing. A day spent in the air of an extra-ventilated green building correlated with the best performance on the tests. Participants performed 61 percent better in green-building air than in conventional air, and 101 percent higher in the Green+ scenario. The research was supported in part by a United Technologies gift to Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. United Technologies, which makes building systems, wasn't involved in the experiment itself. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric Roston, Bloomberg

    Failure to Timely File Suit in Federal Court for Flood Loss is Fatal

    June 29, 2017 —
    Although the insureds timely filed their suit for denial of flood benefits in state court, the Fourth Circuit found the lawsuit against the Insurer was untimely because it was not filed in federal district court. Woodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 U. S. App. LEXIS 7862 (4th Cir. May 3 , 2917). Hurricane Irene struck the insureds' house in August 27, 2011. Their property was flooded and for several hours, subjected to wave action, allegedly causing further damage to the home. The insureds contacted Allstate, who retained Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. to inspect the property. Rimkus found that, other than a substantial loss of soil washed away around the supporting portion of the house, there was no damage to the structure of the house. Rimkus recommended reimbursement of $1200 for the washed out soil. The insureds retained House Engineering, P.C., which submitted a report describing substantial damage caused by the hurricane, including movement to the pilings that caused the house to no longer be level. The insureds claimed $228,822 in damages. 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

    Know Whether Your Course of Business Operations Are Covered Or Excluded By Your Insurance

    December 27, 2021 —
    It is a good idea to know what your insurance covers and does not cover. This way, if your course of business has you performing a certain (risky) operation, you know whether that operation is covered or excluded under your policy. If you are not sure, discuss with your insurance broker — this is important. There is little value performing an operation that is NOT covered by your insurance policy, as you are now performing a risk that is not covered by insurance. If you know it is not covered by insurance you may elect to change your operations or see if there is insurance to cover the risk. Below is a case study of this occurrence dealing with a commercial automobile liability policy where an insured’s operations using a crane mounted to a super duty truck was not covered under their automobile liability policy. In People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D262a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), homeowners hired a company to install a shed. The company hired another company to deliver and install the shed using a crane; the company used a crane mounted to a Ford F-750 super duty truck. This company improperly operated the crane resulting in the shed falling and damaging the homeowner’s roof. The homeowners submitted a claim to their property insurer and their property insurer subrogated to their rights and sued. The company operating the crane’s commercial automobile liability insurer denied coverage, and thus, denied the duty to defend. As a result, a Coblentz-type agreement was entered into where the company operating the crane consented to a judgment in favor of the property insurer (subrogee) and assigned its rights under its commercial automobile liability policy to the property insurer. The property insurer then sued the automobile liability carrier for coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the automobile liability insurer finding there was no coverage and this was affirmed on appeal. Why? 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

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    December 15, 2016 —
    Calling into question the continued validity of the so-called “Bellefonte Rule,” on December 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question whether a facultative reinsurance contract limit is presumptively all-inclusive and “caps” the reinsurer’s total exposure even where the reinsured policy pays defense costs in addition to the limit. Global Reinsurance Corporation v. Century Indemnity Company Docket No. 15-2164-cv (December 8, 2016).[1] In Bellefonte Reinsurance Company v. Aetna 903 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1990), the court ruled that a reinsurer was not liable to pay defense costs above the stated reinsurance contract limit. Although litigants argued that this ruling was dependent on the fact that the reinsured policy limits were defense cost-inclusive, a later panel of the Second Circuit applied the “cap” ruling in Bellefonte to a situation where the reinsured policy limit was not cost-inclusive and where the insurer was obligated to pay defense costs in addition to the policy limit. Unigard Security Insurance Company v. North River Insurance Company 4 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir. 1993). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ellen Burrows, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Burrows may be contacted at burrowse@whiteandwilliams.com