BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Recover Before Insured Is Made Whole

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

    It’s Too Late, Lloyd’s: New York Federal Court Finds Insurer Waived Late Notice Defense

    Duty to Defend Triggered by Damage to Other Non-Defective Property

    Colorado Senate Committee Approves Construction Defect Bill

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Recognized in “The Best Lawyers in America” & “Best Lawyers: One’s to Watch” 2024 Editions

    Congratulations 2022 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Claim Against Broker Survives Motion to Dismiss

    The Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects Continues

    Has Hydrogen's Time Finally Come?

    Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    Quick Note: Insurer’s Denial of Coverage Waives Right to Enforce Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    A Landlord’s Guide to the Center for Disease Control’s Eviction Moratorium

    Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

    Defect Claims Called “Witch Hunt”

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

    ASCE Report Calls for Sweeping Changes to Texas Grid Infrastructure

    Maybe Supervising Qualifies as Labor After All

    Back to Basics: What is a Changes Clause?

    Government’s Termination of Contractor for Default for Failure-To-Make Progress

    Adaptive Reuse: Creative Reimagining of Former Office Space to Address Differing Demands

    Double-Wide World Cup Seats Available to 6-Foot, 221-Pound Fans

    The Golden State Commits to Going Green – Why Contractors Will be in High Demand to Build the State’s Infrastructure

    Florida Former Public Works Director Fined for Ethics Violation

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    EPA Threatens Cut in California's Federal Highway Funds

    FAA Seeks Largest Fine Yet on Drones in Near-Miss Crackdown

    Managing Once-in-a-Generation Construction Problems – Part II

    Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Secures Summary Judgment Win for National Hotel Chain

    A Bill for an Act Concerning Workers’ Compensation – 2014 Edition

    LA Metro To Pay Kiewit $297.8M Settlement on Freeway Job

    California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now

    Prison Time and Restitution for Construction Fraud

    Assessing Defective Design Liability on Federal Design-Build Projects

    Were Condos a Bad Idea?

    Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

    Playing Hot Potato: Indemnity Strikes Again

    One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

    Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014

    CISA Clarifies – Construction is Part of Critical Infrastructure Activities

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    Be Careful with Mechanic’s Lien Waivers

    No Hiring Surge by Homebuilders Says Industry Group

    Employees Versus Independent Contractors

    No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period

    Stuck in Seattle: The Aggravating Adventures of a Gigantic Tunnel Drill

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract
    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

    Late Notice Kills Insured's Claim for Damage Due to Hurricane

    December 27, 2021 —
    The insurer's motion for summary judgment was granted based upon the insured's late notice nearly two years after a hurricane caused property damage. Ramirez v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209716 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2021). Plaintiff alleged he suffered property loss due to wind and water damage from Hurricane Irma on September 10, 2017. The roof, exterior, and interior of the home were damaged. On May 20, 2019, twenty months after the hurricane, plaintiff first notified Scottsdale of his claim for damages. An adjuster inspected and observed wind, wear and tear, and deterioration damage to the roof tile, as well as interior water damage to portions of the home. The claim was denied based upon wind, wear and tear, and deterioration exclusions in the policy. 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

    Tenants Underwater: Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Privity Requirement for Property Damage Claims Against Contractors

    April 25, 2022 —
    In United States Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Erie Ins. Exch., et al., No. 21A-CT-580, 2022 Ind. App. LEXIS 87 (Automatic Sprinkler), the Court of Appeals of Indiana (Court of Appeals) considered whether there is a privity requirement for property damage claims against contractors. The court imposed a privity requirement. The court also addressed whether a subrogation waiver in a contract with a tenant applied to damage caused by work done outside the contract, at the landlord’s request. The court held that the waiver did not apply. In this case, United States Automatic Sprinkler (Automatic Sprinkler) contracted with a tenant (Contract Tenant) to inspect and test a sprinkler system at a commercial building in Indiana. The contract included a waiver of subrogation provision. The building landlord subsequently hired Automatic Sprinkler to repair a leak in the sprinkler system. After completing the repairs, the system failed and flooded the building, causing significant property damage to several tenancies. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

    Developer Boymelgreen Forced to Hand Over Financial Records for 15 Broad Street

    September 24, 2014 —
    The Manhattan Supreme Court “denied a last-ditch effort by Jeshayahu Boymelgreen to avoid handing over financial records as part of a state investigation into the development of 15 Broad Street in the Financial District,” according to The Real Deal. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman had ordered Boymelgreen to turn over the records. Futhermore, according to court records (as reported in The Real Deal), “the developer was also seeking to reduce the amount of money required to fund a $470,000 escrow account to make repairs at the condo — known as Downtown by Starck — which Boymelgreen jointly developed with Africa Israel.” “We’re glad to see that the courts are rejecting Boymelgreen’s arguments why he shouldn’t be required to maintain an escrow account as security for the sponsor to obtain a permanent certificate of occupancy for 15 Broad, as was set forth in the very offering he participated in with Africa Israel,” Steven Sladkus, attorney for unit owners at the condo, stated. “Accountability is one step closer to the light at the end of the tunnel.” Brian Itzkowitz, an attorney representing Boymelgreen, did not return The Real Deal’s calls or emails. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bank of America’s Countrywide Ordered to Pay $1.3 Billion

    July 30, 2014 —
    Bank of America Corp.’s Countrywide unit was ordered to pay $1.3 billion in penalties for defective mortgage loans it sold to Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, a little more than half of what the U.S. had requested. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan issued the civil penalty against the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank today in the first mortgage-fraud case brought by the federal government to go to trial. Countrywide and Rebecca Mairone, a former executive with the mortgage lender, were found liable in October for selling thousands of bad loans to the two government-sponsored enterprises. Mairone was ordered today to pay $1 million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg
    Ms. Hurtado may be contacted at pathurtado@bloomberg.net

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    April 03, 2013 —
    The federal district court predicted that the Utah Supreme Court would find that damage to property other than the insured's work product is unexpected and arises from an occurrence. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. AMSCO Windows, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15999 (D. Utah Feb. 5, 2013). The insured, AMSCO Windows, installed windows in new homes constructed in Nevada. A number of homeowners asserted claims against the contractors who built their homes, alleging numerous construction defects, including the windows, and that the defects caused property damage to their homes. The contractors, in turn, asserted claims against AMSCO. The insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, filed for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify AMSCO. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Billionaire Row Condo Board Sues Developers Over 1,500 Building Defects

    September 29, 2021 —
    The condo board at one of New York’s tallest and toniest towers sued the building’s developers, claiming design flaws are to blame for flooding, stuck elevators and “horrible and obtrusive noise and vibration.” The residential tower at 432 Park Avenue is a 1,396-foot skyscraper overlooking Central Park that was opened in 2015 on the city’s so-called Billionaire Row. The condo board claims its engineering consultant has identified more than 1,500 construction and design defects — “many of which are described as life safety issues.” The board that represents the condo owners sued the developers, CIM Group and Macklowe Properties, and the company, also known as sponsor, that the developers formed to build the tower. The board is seeking $250 million, plus punitive damages, in the lawsuit, filed Thursday in New York Supreme Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Burnson, Bloomberg

    Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

    December 18, 2022 —
    The project to install a suicide-deterrence net and perform other upgrades on the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco now is expected to complete five years late and cost more than double the original contract price, its contractors say. The joint venture leading the project filed a breach-of-contract complaint against the agency that manages the bridge seeking $195 million in damages, while the agency counters that delays were caused by changes in the contractor’s ownership. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations

    May 27, 2019 —
    The Tennessee Supreme Court has refused to construe an ambiguous definition of actual cash value to allow for deduction of labor costs as part of depreciation calculations where that subset of repair costs are not clearly addressed in the policy. Despite the split of authority nationwide, the Tennessee case presents a straightforward application of policy interpretation principles to a common valuation issue in first-party property claims. In Lammert v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Co., No. M2017-2546-SC-R23-CV (Tenn. Apr. 15, 2019), insureds brought a class-action lawsuit against their property insurer, Auto-Owners, alleging breach of contract. The plaintiffs each owned buildings damaged by a hail storm and had each submitted claims to Auto-Owners. Auto-Owners accepted the claims and determined that the losses would be determined on an actual cash value basis. In performing those valuations, Auto-Owners depreciated both the building materials and the labor costs associated with repairing the properties. The insureds challenged the labor cost depreciation. Auto-Owners moved to dismiss the lawsuit. In response, the insureds requested that the district court certify to the Tennessee Supreme Court whether, “[u]nder Tennessee law, may an insurer in making an actual cash value payment withhold a portion of repair labor as depreciation when the policy (1) defines actual cash value as ‘the cost to replace damaged property with new property of similar quality and features reduced by the amount of depreciation applicable to the damaged property immediately prior to the loss,’ or (2) states that ‘actual cash value includes a deduction for depreciation?”’ Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of