BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut window 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


    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    How the Science of Infection Can Make Cities Stronger

    A Recap of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Summer Slate

    South Carolina Supreme Court Asked Whether Attorney-Client Privilege Waived When Insurer Denies Bad Faith

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    The Treasures Inside Notre Dame Cathedral

    Construction Law Firm Opens in D.C.

    Bar Against Forum Selection Clauses in Construction Contracts Extended to Design Professionals

    Contractor's Agreement to Perform Does Not Preclude Coverage Under Contractual Liability Exclusion

    Ten Years After Colorado’s Adverse Possession Amendment: a brief look backwards and forwards

    Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

    California Court of Appeal Finds Alleged Inadequate Defense by Insurer-Appointed Defense Counsel Does Not Trigger a Right to Independent Counsel

    Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents

    Texas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Colorado Supreme Court Grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes

    Roadway Contractor Owed Duty of Care to Driver Injured Outside of Construction Zone

    Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts

    Manhattan Home Sales Rise at Slower Pace as Prices Jump

    Boston Team Secures Summary Judgment Dismissal on Client’s Behalf in Serious Personal Injury Case

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/10/24) – New Type of Nuclear Reactor, Big Money Surrounding Sports Stadiums, and Positivity from Fannie Mae’s Monthly Consumer Survey

    The Importance of Preliminary Notices on Private Works Projects

    No Additional Insured Coverage Under Umbrella Policy

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    Delaware Settlements with Minors and the Uniform Transfer to Minor Act

    A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines

    Investigators Eye Fiber Optic Work in Deadly Wisconsin Explosion

    Carbon Sequestration Can Combat Global Warming, Sometimes in Unexpected Ways

    Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

    The New Jersey Theme Park Where Kids’ Backhoe Dreams Come True

    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    Retired Judge Claims Asbestos in Courthouse gave him Cancer

    Client Alert: Michigan Insurance Company Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in California for Losses Suffered in Arkansas

    Owners and Contractors are Liable for Injuries Caused by their Independent Contractors under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine”

    Managing Partner Jeff Dennis Recognized as One of the Most Influential Business People & Opinion Shapers in Orange County

    Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care

    U.K. Puts Tax on Developers to Fund Safer Apartment Blocks

    Number of Occurrences Depends on Who is Sued

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

    De-escalating The Impact of Price Escalation

    Companies Move to Houston Area and Spur Home Building

    Industry Groups Decry Jan. 6 Riot; DOT Chief Chao Steps Down in Protest

    San Francisco Bay Bridge Tower Rod Fails Test

    Report to Congress Calls for Framework to Cut Post-Quake Recovery Time

    ETF Bulls Bet Spring Will Thaw the U.S. Housing Market

    Defective Sprinklers Not Cause of Library Flooding

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa Rolle and Christopher Acosta Win Motion to Dismiss in Bronx County Trip and Fall

    Navigating Complex Preliminary Notice Requirements

    Residential Construction Surges in Durham

    Landlords Challenge U.S. Eviction Ban and Continue to Oust Renters

    Lucky No. 7: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Pro-Policyholder Decision Regarding Additional Insured Coverage for Upstream Parties
    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

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

    April 17, 2019 —
    The Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Frances Todd, Inc. (2019 Cal.App. LEXIS 299 / 2019 WL 1450731) case has potential implications for insurance carriers, policyholders, condominium associations, unit owners, landlords and tenants. The case involves a fire at a commercial condominium complex (the “Association”). The Association’s CC&Rs required the Association to purchase a master fire insurance policy for the benefit of the Association and owners, with a waiver of subrogation endorsement that stated the insurance company could not seek reimbursement from the Association, its officers, owners or occupants of the units in the event of a covered fire. The CC&Rs also prohibited individual owners from obtaining their own fire insurance. The Association purchased the required fire insurance policy from Western Heritage Insurance Company (“Western Heritage”). One of the owner’s tenants, Frances Todd, Inc. (“Frances Todd”), allegedly caused a fire that damaged several units. Although the unit owner was covered as an additional named insured under the Western Heritage fire policy, the tenant, Frances Todd, was not. Western Heritage paid for the common area fire damage caused by Francis Todd, and then sued Frances Todd in a subrogation action to recover the amounts paid. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason M. Adams, Gibbs Giden
    Mr. Adams may be contacted at jadams@gibbsgiden.com

    Are Construction Contract Limitation of Liability Clauses on the Way Out in Virginia?

    March 11, 2024 —
    Remember BAE Systems and Fluor? This post is the third here at Construction Law Musings relating to this case which is a seemingly never-ending source for content. In the prior post discussing this case, the Court found that Va. Code 1-4.1:1 which bars waiver of a right to payment before work is performed did not apply because Fluor had provided work before execution of the contract or any change orders. In the most recent opinion in this long-running litigation, and after a motion to reconsider by Fluor that was granted, the Court re-examined this finding along with the contractual language found in the Limitation of Damages (LOD) clause and came to the opposite conclusion regarding certain change orders that remained unpaid by BAE. The Court first looked to the language of the contract itself and specifically the language in the LOD provision that states “Except as otherwise provided in this Subcontract.” The Court then looked at the change order provision and its typical equitable adjustment language and the mandatory nature of the equitable adjustment language. The Court found that the LOD provisions did not apply to change orders both because price increases due to change orders are not “damages” and because of the exception language in the LOD provision itself. 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

    New York Court Rejects Owner’s Bid for Additional Insured Coverage

    September 06, 2021 —
    Tenders for additional insured coverage in construction accidents are frequently litigated in New York courts. Although the past few years have seen changes in the law regarding the causal nexus between the named insured’s work and coverage for the purported additional insured, courts often find there is at least a duty to defend the additional insured where there are allegations of the employer/subcontractor’s presence at the site. An exception is the recent decision in Gemini Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Index No. 652669/20 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Lebovits, J.). In that case, Gemini insured the owner and general contractor of a construction project, and Lloyd’s insured the injured claimant’s employer under a policy endorsed to provide additional insured coverage to entities who “have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement” with the named insured that they must be “added as additional insured.” Although the court found that the contracts here satisfied this requirement for additional insured coverage, the court’s analysis did not end there. Noting that even where such contract exists, the Lloyd’s policy would not provide additional insured coverage “in all circumstances” (emphasis in original), the court next considered whether the underlying injury was “caused in whole or in part by: 1. [The named insured’s] acts or omissions, or 2. The acts or omissions of those acting on [the named insured’s] behalf,” as required under the endorsement’s wording. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (2/21/24) – Fed Chair Predicts More Small Bank Closures, Shopping Center Vacancies Hit 15-year Low, and Proptech Sees Mixed Results

    March 19, 2024 —
    In our latest roundup, office occupancy rates hit all-time lows, global hotel investment to exceed numbers from 2023, federal courts look into real estate commissions, and more! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Texas Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in Vines-Herrin Custom Homes v Great American Lloyds Insurance Company on December 21, 2011. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes built a single-family home in Plano, Texas in 1999. They obtained a commercial general liability policy from Great American, later purchasing coverage from Mid-Continent, which the decision describes as “a sister company of Great American.”

    While the home was under construction, Emil G. Cerullo sought to purchase it. At the time, it was under contract to another buyer. Two months later, Vines-Herrin told Cerullo that the deal had “fell through.” Cerullo bought the house with modifications from the original plan. Upon moving in, Cerullo began having water intrusion and other problems. “Cerullo noticed water gathering on window sills and damage to the sheetrock and baseboard.” Additional problems followed, including cracks, leaks, “and in early 2002, the ceiling and roof began to sag.”

    Cerullo sued Vines-Herrin, claiming negligent construction. Vines-Herrin filed a claim seeking defense and indemnification under the insurance policies. Coverage was denied and Vines-Herrin filed suit to require coverage and also bringing claims for “breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and DTPA and insurance code violations.”

    In May, 2006 Vines-Herrin stated that it had no more defense funds and went into arbitration with Cerullo. The underlying construction defect action was settled for about $2.5 million. As part of the settlement, “Cerullo became the rightful owner of all remaining claims, rights, and causes of action against” Vines-Herrin’s insurers. He then joined the coverage lawsuit.

    The non-jury trial was held under the controlling law of the time which “imposed a duty to defend only if the property damage manifested or became apparent during the policy period.” The court concluded in Cerullo’s favor. During the post-judgment motions, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the manifestation rule. Under this ruling, the trial court set aside its judgment and found in favor of the insurance companies. The trial court noted that although “the Residence was covered by an uninterrupted period of insurance (which began before the Residence was constructed) and that the damages to the Residence manifested during the uninterrupted period of insurance coverage,” “Mr. Cerullo failed to allege the date when actual physical damage to the property occurred.”

    The first claim by Cerullo and Vines-Herrin was that the “Final Judgment” occurred in October 2004, and that all proceedings thereafter were void. The court rejected this as the “final judgment” is not “final for the purposes of an appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Despite the use of the word “final,” the trial court’s decision did not do this.

    The second issue was the application of the Texas Supreme Court case Don’s Building Supply Inc. v. OneBeacon Insurance. In this case, framing rot due to defective stucco was not discovered until after the end of the policy period. The Supreme Court noted that “the key date is when injury happens, not when someone happens on it.”

    The appeals court found that the trial court misapplied the Don’s Building Supply decision. Rather than an exact date, “so long as that damage occurred within the policy period, coverage was provided.” The appeals court noted that “Cerullo alleged the house was constructed in 1999 and he purchased it in May 2000.” “By April of 2001, Cerullo noticed that the windowsills in the study were showing signs of leakage and water damage.” As the court put it, “the petitions then alleged a litany of defects.”

    The court noted that coverage by Great American was in effect from November 9, 1999 to November 9, 2000. In May of 2000, the house suffered “substantial flooding from a rainstorm that caused damage.” This was during the policy period. “As a matter of law, actual damages must occur no later than when they manifest.”

    The court concluded that as damage manifested during the period of coverage, so must have the damage. The court ruled that “contrary to the trial court’s determination otherwise, the evidence showed Great American’s duty to indemnify was triggered, and expert testimony establishing the exact date of injury was not required to trigger the duty.”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rise Most Since February 2006

    January 29, 2014 —
    Home prices in 20 U.S. cities rose in November from a year ago by the most in almost eight years, providing a boost to household wealth. The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property prices in 20 cities climbed 13.7 percent from November 2012, the biggest 12-month gain since February 2006, after a 13.6 percent increase in the year ended in October, a report from the group showed today in New York. The median projection of 31 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 13.8 percent advance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeanna Smialek, Bloomberg
    Ms. Smialek may be contacted at jsmialek1@bloomberg.net

    Nashville Stadium Bond Deal Tests Future of Spectator Sports

    December 14, 2020 —
    America’s country-music capital is making a bet on the world’s most popular sport. A Nashville, Tennessee agency is selling $225 million of bonds to finance the construction of a 30,000-seat Major League Soccer stadium in Music City, anticipating it could be a boon once spectator sports emerge from the pandemic. Local officials have faith that it will: the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County agreed to step in if revenue from the stadium isn’t enough to cover the debt payments, insulating bondholders from risk. Reprinted courtesy of Amanda Albright, Bloomberg and Danielle Moran, Bloomberg Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Homebuilding Down in North Dakota

    October 30, 2013 —
    Only eleven new homes have been started this year in the Pierre area in North Dakota. Last year saw 35 homes built in the same area. Brad Lawrence, the Fort Pierre Director of Public Works, blamed last year’s Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey, stating that “superstorm Sandy has just devoured a tremendous amount of building projects.” Area builders did say that some building materials went up in price after the storm, describing it as an “availability scare,” but some prices went down during the summer of 2013. Susan Ogan, of Neil Ogan Construction said that “our biggest thing is that people cannot find a lot they can afford and still say within their budget for the overall project.” Although single-family homes aren’t being built, apartments are. “We’ve got a 24-unit apartment going in as we speak,” said Mr. Lawrence. That, some feel, may be responsible for the lack of demand for single-family homes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of