BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut engineering 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


    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    Fast-Moving Isaias Dishes Out Disruption in the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast

    The Clock is Ticking: Construction Delays and Liquidated Damages

    Chicago Makes First Major Update to City's Building Code in 70 Years

    Mercury News Editorial Calls for Investigation of Bay Bridge Construction

    Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite

    Mountain States Super Lawyers 2019 Recognizes 21 Nevada Snell & Wilmer Attorneys

    Ritzy NYC Tower Developer Says Residents’ Lawsuit ‘Ill-Advised’

    Torrey Pines Court Receives Funding for Renovation

    Builders Association Seeks to Cut Down Grassroots Green Building Program (Guest Post)

    Bill Proposes First-Ever Federal Workforce Housing Tax Credit for Middle-Class Housing

    Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Injury To Subcontractor's Employee

    Defense Owed for Product Liability Claims That Do Not Amount to Faulty Workmanship

    Occurrence-Based Insurance Policies and Claims-Made Insurance Policies – There’s a Crucial Difference

    Three's a Trend: Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits Uphold Broad "Related Claims" Language

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (02/15/23) – Proptech Solutions, Supply Chain Pivots, and the Inflation Reduction Act

    Judicial Economy Disfavors Enforcement of Mandatory Forum Selection Clause

    The BUILDCHAIN Project Enhances Data Exchange and Transparency in the EU Construction Industry

    Report Highlights Trends in Construction Tech, Digitization, and AI

    Zinc in London Climbs for Second Day Before U.S. Housing Data

    Liability Insurer’s Duty To Defend Insured Is Broader Than Its Duty To Indemnify

    Texas Jury Awards $5.3 Million to Company Defamed by Union: Could it work in Pennsylvania?

    Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

    San Francisco Sues Over Sinking Millennium Tower

    China Construction Bank Sued in US Over Reinsurance Fraud Losses

    Pre-Judgment Interest Not Awarded Under Flood Policy

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

    Just Decided – New Jersey Supreme Court: Insurers Can Look To Extrinsic Evidence To Deny a Defense

    Colorado SB 15-177 UPDATE: Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee Refers Construction Defect Reform Bill to Full Senate

    Denial of Claim for Concealment or Fraud Reversed by Sixth Circuit

    U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

    Balcony Collapses Killing Six People

    Contractor Side Deals Can Waive Rights

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    Contractor Prevailing Against Subcontractor On Common Law Indemnity Claim

    Deductibles Limited to Number of Suits Filed Against Insured, Not Number of Actual Plaintiffs

    M&A Representation and Warranty Insurance Considerations in the Wake of the Coronavirus Pandemic

    Construction Bidding for Success

    New Home Construction Booming in Texas

    Law Firm's Business Income, Civil Authority Claim Due to Hurricanes Survives Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    Property Owner Entitled to Rely on Zoning Administrator Advice

    New Jersey Court Washes Away Insurer’s Waiver of Subrogation Arguments

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 3: Standard Form Policy Exclusions

    Modular Homes Test Energy Efficiency Standards

    EPA Issues New PFAS Standard, Provides $1B for Testing, Cleanup of 'Forever Chemicals'

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Undocumented Change Work

    Vaccine Mandate Confusion Continues – CMS Vaccine Mandate Restored in Some (But Not All) US States

    Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?

    ‘Revamp the Camps’ Cabins Displayed at the CA State Fair

    Duty to Defend Bodily Injury Evolving Over Many Policy Periods Prorated in Louisiana
    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

    Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)

    April 20, 2017 —
    In my previous post, I made reference to getting a “Reservation of Rights” letter. I noted that the carrier may decide to defend you under a Reservation of Rights (i.e., hire your lawyer) but may not, necessarily, accept the responsibility for paying the claim. Does this mean that the insurance company has denied your claim, or will never pay? No. Reservation of Rights (ROR) letters are sent for a variety of reasons- most notably, when some portion of the construction lawsuit against you is not covered under your E&O policy. The letter must state the reason(s) that the ROR is being issued. With the ROR, the insurance company is telling you that it reserves the right to withdraw from your defense and/or deny payment of damages at a later date, depending upon how facts in the case develop. The notice is intended to let you know that there *may* be issues later, and to put you notice that you have the right to hire your own lawyer (at your own expense) to protect yourself from that future potential risk. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Little Known Florida Venue Statue Benefitting Resident Contractors

    June 30, 2016 —
    When it comes to venue, there is a rather unknown venue statute that benefits resident contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers working on Florida projects. This statute, Fla. Stat. s. 47.025, states: Any venue provision in a contract for improvement to real property which requires legal action involving a resident contractor, subcontractor, sub-subcontractor, or materialman, as defined in part I of chapter 713, to be brought outside this state is void as a matter of public policy. To the extent that the venue provision in the contract is void under this section, any legal action arising out of that contract shall be brought only in this state in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located, unless, after the dispute arises, the parties stipulate to another venue. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Drones Used Despite Uncertain Legal Consequences

    March 12, 2015 —
    Francis Manchisi of Wilson Elser discussed how several industries—including construction—are using unmanned aircraft systems or unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly referred to as drones, and are either exploiting legal loopholes or ignoring laws altogether. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has recently released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which is now in a 60-day “notice and comment” period that is open to the public. Once that period ends, the FAA will consider the comments before putting the rules into law. According to Manchisi, the proposed rules include:
    • Unmanned aircraft must weigh less than 55 lbs. (25 kg).
    • Unmanned aircraft must remain within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the operator or visual observer.
    • Maximum altitude is 500 feet above ground level.
    • Preflight inspection by the operator is required.
    • Operators are required to obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a sUAS rating from the FAA.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hunton Insurance Head Interviewed Concerning the Benefits and Hidden Dangers of Cyber Insurance

    December 04, 2018 —
    The head of Hunton Andrews Kurth’s insurance practice, Walter Andrews, was interviewed earlier this week by ABC 7 (WJLA) concerning the need for cyber insurance and the benefits that it can provide to government contractors and other businesses that are impacted by a cyber event. Andrews explains the diverse spectrum of benefits that are available through cyber insurance products, but cautions that a serious lack of uniformity exists among today’s cyber insurance products, making it crucial that policyholders carefully analyze their cyber insurance to ensure it provides the scope and amount of insurance they desire. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

    Determining Duty to Defend in Wisconsin Does Not Include Extrinsic Evidence

    September 22, 2016 —
    The policyholder's attempt to extend the duty to defend analysis beyond the complaint's allegations and the four-corners of the policy failed before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Water Well Solutions Service Group Inc. v. Consolidated Ins. Co., 2016 Wisc. LEXIS 163 (Wis. Sup. Ct. June 30, 2016). 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

    AIA Releases State-Specific Waiver and Release Forms

    September 05, 2022 —
    The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has released a new series of state-specific waiver and release forms including forms for California. The new California-specific forms are:
    1. G901CA-2022 – California Conditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment
    2. G902CA-2022 – California Unconditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment
    3. G903CA-2022 – California Conditional Waiver and Release on Final Payment
    4. G904CA-2022 – California Unconditional Waiver and Release on Final Payment
    California is one of twelve states – including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Texas, Utah and Wyoming – which regulate waiver and release forms on construction projects. California’s waiver and release statute, which is codified at Civil Code section 8120 et seq., sets forth specific language which should be used in waivers and releases. While the exact language set forth under California’s waiver and release statutes does not need to be used, the statute provides that the language must be “in substantially” the same form, and most people follow the statutory language exactly. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building Conditions

    September 30, 2019 —
    The standard for an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy has been addressed on several occasions by Pennsylvania courts when an insured has allegedly performed faulty workmanship on a construction project. Specifically, in Pennsylvania, a claim for damages arising from an insured’s performance of faulty workmanship pursuant to a construction contract, where the only damage is to property supplied by the insured or worked on by the insured, does not constitute an “occurrence” under the standard commercial general liability insurance policy definition. But what about the circumstance when the insured has failed to perform contractual duties where the claim is for property damage to property not supplied by the insured or unrelated to the service the insured contracted to provide? The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently addressed this question in Pennsylvania Manufacturers Indemnity Co. v. Pottstown Industrial Complex LP, No. 3489 EDA 2018, 2019 Pa. Super. 223, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 729* (Pa. Super. 2019). Pottstown Industrial Complex arose out of an underlying dispute between a landlord and a commercial tenant who had leased space to store its product inventory. The tenant alleged that the landlord was responsible under the lease for keeping the roof “in serviceable condition in repair.” Notwithstanding this responsibility, the tenant alleged that the landlord failed to properly maintain and repair the roof, resulting in leaks and flooding during four separate rainstorms, destroying over $700,000 in inventory. The tenant specifically alleged that the floods were caused by poor caulking of the roof, gaps and separations in the roofing membrane, undersized drain openings, and accumulated debris and clogged drains. The insurer filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a determination that there was no coverage under a commercial general liability policy issued to the landlord. Following a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court entered an order in favor of the insurer, holding that allegations of inadequate roof repairs were claims for faulty workmanship and were not covered under Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006) and Millers Capital Insurance Co. v. Gambone Brothers Development Co., 941 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. 2007). Reprinted courtesy of Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Konrad Krebs, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Krebs may be contacted at krebsk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Excess Insurer On The Hook For Cleanup Costs At Seven Industrial Sites

    August 28, 2018 —
    A New York district court has held that an insurer must provide coverage under three excess insurance policies issued in 1970 for defense and cleanup costs incurred by Olin Corporation in remediating environmental contamination at seven sites in Connecticut, Washington, Maryland, Illinois, New York, and Washington. Seven of the remaining sites at issue presented questions of fact for trial, with only one site being dismissed due to lack of coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of