BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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


    Jury Awards 20 Million Verdict Against Bishop Abbey Homes

    Replacement of Gym Floor Due to Sloppy Paint Job is Not Resulting Loss

    California Bullet Train Clears Federal Environmental Approval

    Construction Law Client Advisory: What The Recent Beacon Decision Means For Developers And General Contractors

    How Retro-Commissioning Can Extend the Life of a Building—and the Planet

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    Florida Governor Bans Foreign Citizens From Buying Land in Florida

    No Coverage for Defects in Subcontrator's Own Work

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    A Lack of Sophistication With the Construction Contract Can Play Out In an Ugly Dispute

    A Year-End Review of the Environmental Regulatory Landscape

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property

    Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)

    Architect Sues over Bidding Procedure

    Weed Property Owner Gets Smoked Under Insurance Policy

    Canada’s Largest Homebuilder Sets U.S. Growth Plan

    Texas Federal Court Delivers Another Big Win for Policyholders on CGL Coverage for Construction-Defect Claims and “Rip-and-Tear” Damages

    Mandatory Energy Benchmarking is On Its Way

    The Contract Disputes Act: What Every Federal Government Contractor Should Know

    NY Gov. Sets Industry Advisory Council to Fix Public Contracts Process

    Ohio: Are Construction Defects Covered in Insurance Policies?

    VinFast Breaks Ground in North Carolina on its Promised $4B EV Plant

    U.S. Homeowners Are Lingering Longer, and the Wait Is Paying Off

    Agreement Authorizing Party’s Own Engineer to Determine Substantial Compliance Found Binding on Adverse Party

    The Most Expensive Travel Construction Flops

    North Carolina Weakened Its Building Codes in 2013

    Construction Termination Issues for the Architect and Engineer: Part 1– Introduction to the Series

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    Oregon Condo Owners Make Construction Defect Claim

    NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

    Digitalizing Cross-Laminated Timber Construction

    Yellowstone Park Aims for Quick Reopening After Floods

    Apartments pushed up US homebuilding in September

    Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects

    The Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Trial to Begin

    Washington State Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision on Spearin Doctrine

    Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents

    Rights Afforded to Employees and Employers During Strikes

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2023 “Atlanta 500” List

    Insurers Must Defend Allegations of Faulty Workmanship

    Designing a Fair Standard of Care in Design Agreements

    Meet BWB&O’s 2025 Best Lawyers in America!

    Brown Orders Mandatory Water Curbs for California Drought

    How to Prepare for Potential Construction Disputes Resulting From COVID-19

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    California’s Right to Repair Act not an Exclusive Remedy

    Business Solutions Alert: Homeowners' Complaint for Breach of Loan Modification Agreement Can Proceed Past Pleading Stage

    Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    Construction Companies Can Be Liable for “Secondary Exposure” of Asbestos to Household Members
    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

    No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims under Kentucky Law

    March 25, 2024 —
    The federal district court determined that the insurer was not obligated to defend construction defect claims under Kentucky law. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222674 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2023). HRB, the owner of an apartment complex, filed an arbitration demand against the general contractor, Doster Commercial Construction, for allegedly doing faulty concrete work in the construction of the apartments. Doster added its concrete subcontrator Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete - and 16 other subcontractors - to the arbitration. Kentuckiana tendered the claim to its insurer, Westfield. Wesfield defended. Doster claimed it was an additional insured under the Westfield policy and also sought coverage. Westfield refused the defend Doster. Westfield argued there was no "occurrence." Westfield then sued both Doster and Kentuckiana in federal court, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend either. Westfield moved for a judgment on the pleadings. 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

    Seattle Developer Defaults on Renovated Office Buildings

    December 23, 2024 —
    A major developer in downtown Seattle defaulted on a loan backed by two of its most prized office properties, including one that formerly housed a branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Firms tied to Martin Selig Real Estate are in default on a more than $200 million loan, according to letters from lender Acore Capital dated Nov. 15 that were filed in Washington’s King County. The buildings would change ownership 30 days after that notice if no other action is taken, according to the letters. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anna Edgerton, Bloomberg

    Did Deutsche Make a Deal with the Wrong Homeowner?

    September 03, 2014 —
    Deutsche Bank wants “to void a loan modification it claims resulted in a $125,000 discount on the wrong homeowners' outstanding mortgage,” according to the New Jersey Law Journal. Furthermore, even though the Deutsche Bank “obtained a default judgment a year ago… a New Jersey federal judge is currently considering the homeowners' motion to vacate it, most recently ordering a hearing to determine whether the couple was properly served.” According to the complaint, the Deutsche Bank claims that “its mortgage servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, mistakenly offered the modification to Lorraine and Raymond Lindsey of Franklinville, N.J., though the terms of the deal were intended for other homeowners in connection with a loan held by a different bank.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Massachusetts Clarifies When the Statute of Repose is Triggered For a Multi-Phase or Multi-Building Project

    December 07, 2020 —
    Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC (“Lennar”) built a twenty-eight-building, 150-unit condominium project containing twenty-four discrete phases over a seven-year span. The condominium association subsequently brought an action against Lennar and others alleging design and construction defects to four main components of the common elements: “decks and columns,” “roofing/flashing,” “exterior walls/flashing/building envelope,” and “irrigation system.” In response, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s claims with respect to six of the twenty- eight buildings were barred by Massachusetts’s six-year statute of repose, G. L. c. 206 § 2B. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts previously held that all twenty-eight of the condominium’s buildings should be treated as a single improvement for purposes of application of the statute of repose. Subsequently, the court certified the following question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Where the factual record supports the conclusion that a builder or developer was engaged in the continuous construction of a single condominium development comprising multiple buildings or phases, when does the six-year period for an action of tort relating to the construction of the condominium’s common or limited common elements start running? Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Supreme Court Authorizes Exception to the "Eight-Corners" Rule

    February 28, 2022 —
    For decades, an insurer’s duty to defend under Texas law was determined exclusively by reviewing the insurance contract and the allegations of the complaint under the “eight-corners rule.” All of this changed last week when, in a long-awaited decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that courts may consider extrinsic evidence to determine the existence of coverage in certain limited situations. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp., No. 21-0232, 2022 WL 413940 (Tex. Feb. 11, 2022). In Monroe, a drilling contractor was sued for damages arising out of the allegedly botched drilling of an irrigation well. The underlying lawsuit alleged that negligent drilling caused damage to surrounding farmland. However, the complaint did not allege when the damage occurred. The contractor’s insurers, BITCO General Insurance Corporation (“Bitco”) and Monroe Guarantee Insurance Company (“Monroe”) disputed whether Monroe owed a duty to defend. Although Bitco agreed to provide a defense, Monroe refused, arguing that the property damage happened before its policy period. Bitco sued Monroe for contribution. In the trial court, the insurers stipulated that a drill bit became stuck before Monroe’s policy incepted, a fact that would have supported Monroe’s “prior damage” defense. On summary judgment, though, the trial court ruled this stipulated fact could not be considered under Texas’ eight-corners rule. Monroe appealed, and the Fifth Circuit, which had previously endorsed an exception to the eight-corners rule under Northfield Insurance Co. v. Loving Home Care, Inc., 363 F.3d 523, 531 (5th Cir. 2004), certified the question to the Texas Supreme Court. Reprinted courtesy of Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears, Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Federal Court Reinforces Principle That Precise Policy Language Is Required Before An Insurer Can Deny Coverage Based On An Exclusion

    February 07, 2018 —
    A recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul Byron of the Middle District of Florida has made clear that the actual words used in an insurance contract matter. The court, in Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Tactic Security Enforcement, Inc., No. 6:16-cv-01425 (M.D. FL. 2018), denied an insurance company’s motion for summary judgment attempting to rely on an exclusion to deny coverage to its policyholder. The policyholder, Que Rico La Casa Del Mofongo, operated a restaurant establishment in Orlando, Florida, and sought coverage for two negligence lawsuits filed against it for allegedly failing to prevent a shooting and another violent incident on its premises. Reprinted courtesy of Walter J. Andrews, Hunton & Williams and Katherine Miller, Hunton & Williams Mr. Andrews may be contacted at wandrews@hunton.com Ms. Miller may be contacted at kmiller@hunton.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Housing Markets Continue to Improve

    February 11, 2013 —
    The National Association of Home Builders reports that for a sixth consecutive month there has been an increase in the number of housing markets that have shown improvement. The January report saw 242 improving markets, which in February grew to 259. The NAHB notes that there are now improving markets in every state, “suggesting that the housing recovery has substantial momentum.” Not all markets showed continued improvement. Three metropolitan areas were dropped from the list of improving markets, but another twenty were added. The NAHB has been tracking this data since September 2011, when there were only twelve improving markets through the whole country. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hennigh Law Corporation Wins Award Against Viracon, Inc In Defective Gray PIB Case

    July 11, 2022 —
    LOS ANGELES, July 08, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Hennigh Law Corporation has announced that, after an over four-year battle in and out of court, a three arbitrator panel issued a 93-page interim award in finding Viracon, Inc., liable for $13,682,840 in direct damages for defrauding the owner of the premier office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe. The matter now enters the second phase, where the arbitration panel will rule on the amount of punitive damages to assess, as well as attorney fees and interest. Scott Hennigh, trial attorney, states, "The California construction industry is very robust with high standards. The arbitration panel appears to have recognized that California law does not tolerate large out-of-state companies misleading customers. They appear poised to send a message to Viracon about its lack of corporate responsibility." The premier Class-A office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe, serves high-end tenants in entertainment industries such as Warner Brothers. Constructed in 2009, the 13 exterior curtain wall of the 13-story building is encased in seamless glass panels. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Hennigh, Hennigh Law Corporation
    Mr. Hennigh may be contacted at Scott.hennigh@hennighlaw.com