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


    Conversations with My Younger Self: 5 Things I Wish I Knew Then

    Motion to Dismiss Insurer's Counterclaim for Construction Defects Is Granted

    Happenings in and around the 2016 West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Visual Construction Diaries – Interview with Jeff Sassinsky of Fovea Aero

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/30/22) – Proptech Trends, Green Construction, and Sustainable Buildings

    Preparing the Next Generation of Skilled Construction Workers: AGC Workforce Development Plan

    Hawaii Supreme Court Bars Insurers from Billing Policyholders for Uncovered Defense Costs

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    School Board Sues Multiple Firms over Site Excavation Problem

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

    A Third of U.S. Homebuyers Are Bidding Sight Unseen

    Jury Awards Aluminum Company 35 Million in Time Element Losses

    Federal Court Enforces “Limits” and “Most We Will Pay” Clauses in Additional Insured Endorsement

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    Colorado Senate Revives Construction Defects Reform Bill

    NYC Hires Engineer LERA for Parking Garage Collapse Probe

    BWB&O Attorneys are Selected to 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens

    On the Ten Year Anniversary of the JOBS Act A Look-Back at the Development of Crowdfunding

    Construction Defects and Warranties in Maryland

    Housing Starts in U.S. Surge to Seven-Year High as Weather Warms

    Scary Movie: Theatre Developer Axed By Court of Appeal In Prevailing Wage Determination Challenge

    Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

    Minnesota Addresses How Its Construction Statute of Repose Applies to Condominiums

    BWB&O Expands to North San Diego

    Construction of New U.S. Homes Declines on Plunge in South

    Why Clinton and Trump’s Infrastructure Plans Leave Us Wanting More

    Trump, Infrastructure and the Construction Industry

    Home Buyer May Be Third Party Beneficiary of Property Policy

    State Farm to Build Multi-Use Complex in Dallas Area

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

    Puerto Rico Grid Restoration Plagued by Historic Problems, New Challenges

    Connecticut Court Holds Unresolved Coverage Issues Makes Appraisal Premature

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Where Underlying Claim is Strictly Breach of Contract

    No Coverage Where Cracks in Basement Walls Do Not Amount to Sudden Collapse

    Arctic Fires Are Melting Permafrost That Keeps Carbon Underground

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” in four practice areas and Tier 2 in one practice area by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2021

    Texas Shortens Cut-Off Date for Suits Against Homebuilders Who Provide a 6-Year Written Warranty

    Nevada Governor Signs Construction Defect Reform Bill

    "Damage to Your Product" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Nevada Provides Independant Counsel When Conflict Arises Between Insurer and Insured

    Insurer Liable for Bad Faith Despite Actions of Insured Contributing to Excess Judgment

    Business Interruption, Food Spoilage Claims Resulting from Off Premise Power Failure Denied

    2020s Most Read Construction Law Articles

    Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    Giant Floating Solar Flowers Offer Hope for Coal-Addicted Korea

    EEOC Focuses on Eliminating Harassment, Recruitment and Hiring Barriers in the Construction Industry
    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

    Risky Business: Contractual Versus Equitable Rights of Subrogation

    December 16, 2023 —
    In Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Infrastructure Eng’g. Inc., 2023 Ill. App. LEXIS 383, the insurer, Zurich American Insurance Company (Insurer) proceeded as subrogee of Community College District No. 508 d/b/a City Colleges of Chicago and CMO, a Joint Venture. The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District (Appellate Court) addressed whether Insurer – who issued a builder’s risk policy to insure a building during construction – could subrogate on behalf of the building owner, City Colleges of Chicago (City Colleges), who was part of the joint venture and an additional named insured, but who had not been directly paid for the underlying loss. The Appellate Court determined that the policy language established that the carrier was contractually permitted to subrogate on behalf of all additional named insureds on the policy, including the building owner. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

    SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?

    August 30, 2013 —
    The following communication republished courtesy of James Ganion, Ulich & Terry, LLP Dear Builders, Colleagues, and Interested Parties: I attach for your review a copy of this week’s opinion of the California Court of Appeal in our case of Liberty Mutual v. Brookfield. This opinion represents a significant change to the right of California builders to repair homes under SB800, California’s Right to Repair Act. In a nutshell, the Court determined that SB800 was not intended to replace prior applicable law, but merely be supplemental to prior law. Thus, a homeowner, or in this case the homeowner’s insurer, can pick and choose among SB800 and prior law, or even allege both in the alternative. In so deciding, the Court of Appeal reversed the holding of the trial court which had held, as so many trial courts have since 2003, that SB800 was intended to be the new exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. While we of course take issue with most of what the Court of Appeal has to say, the real life net effect is that SB800 is now optional to the homeowner, meaning the “right” to repair now lies in the hands of the homeowner who can elect to simply bypass that law and proceed with the filing of a lawsuit under prior law. Hardly what any of us believe the legislature intended. ULICH & TERRY LLP as counsel for Brookfield in this case will be filing a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeal by September 6, 2013. Anyone interested in supporting the petition may file a letter with the Court of Appeal, preferably by September 13, 2013. Thereafter, assuming the Court of Appeal does not grant rehearing, we will be filing a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. Our firm, as appellate counsel, has established a website libertymutualvbrookfieldcrystalcove.com and through it will be providing information regarding the case, including copies of pleadings, orders, deadlines, and information on how to provide support for this case, which is of interest to the home building industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James Ganion
    James Ganion can be contacted at jganion@ut-law.com

    Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied

    August 27, 2013 —
    Having previously decided that construction defect claims did not arise from an occurrence and were consequently not covered under Hawaii law, the Hawaii Federal District Court refused to dismiss the insured's second amended counterclaim alleging various claims for relief. Ill. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Nordic PCL Construc., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108932 (D. Haw. July 31, 2013). In earlier proceedings, the court determined that the Nordic's allegedly deficient performance on construction contracts was not an "occurrence." The court also rejected Nordic's argument that the Hawaii legislature's Act 83 required the court to deviate from the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc., 383 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2004) or the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals' decision in Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010). Admiral now moved for summary judgment on its complaint and for dismissal of Nordic's second amended counterclaim, alleging bad faith and negligent misrepresentation, among other counts. Summary judgment as to the Safeway claim was denied. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Claim Against Broker Survives Motion to Dismiss

    January 25, 2021 —
    The insured's complaint against its broker for failure to secure adequate coverage survived a motion to dismiss. Broecker v. Conklin Prop., LLC, 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7399 (Dec. 2, 2020). Conklin Property, LLC purchased real property and entered into a contract with JJC Contracting, Inc. for construction and renovation of the property. The broker, Total Management Corp. (TMC) was retained by Conklin to secure insurance for the construction phase of the renovation project. During the renovation, an employee of JJC was injured at the property and died. The employee's estate then sued Conklin. US Underwriters, the insurer, disclaimed coverage pursuant to an exclusion for bodily injury to contractors and subcontractors and their workers. 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

    Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

    November 26, 2014 —
    On November 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court rejected the recent California Court of Appeals decision Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v Eastern Municipal Water District, 228 Cal.App.4th 273 (2014) which we wrote about earlier by “decertifying” it (meaning that lawyers cannot cite to the case as legal precedent) The decertification removed a decision that added substantially to the confusion as to when an action on a payment bond is timely filed. Even though the decision was determined in accordance with pre-2014 statutes, the case was relevant precedent for construction attorneys when determining time deadlines for filing a claim on a bond. Background In July of this year, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court’s granting of summary judgment against a project subcontractor Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB) who sued Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) for unpaid contract amounts on a project payment bond issued by Safeco. Both at the trial level and on appeal Safeco successfully argued that GSB’s action on its payment bond claim was time barred by former California Civil Code Sections 3249 (now Section 9558), because it was filed more than six month after the period in which stop notices may be filed as provided by California’s Civil Code Section 3184 (now Section 9558). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Wrap Music to an Insurer’s Ears?”

    February 05, 2024 —
    The general contractor on a New Orleans condominium construction project obtained a Contractor Controlled Insurance Program/CCIP policy or "Wrap-Up" policy for the job. An accident occurred on the job when a construction elevator/hoist fell, injuring several workers. The elevator/hoist was provided by a subcontractor, pursuant to a rental agreement and related subcontract with the general contractor. Contained within the subcontract was a provision which states that the general contractor "has arranged for the Project to be insured under a controlled insurance program (the "CCIP" or "WrapUp"),” and that the CCIP shall provide "commercial general liability insurance and excess liability insurance, in connection with the performance of the Work at the Project site." A third-party administrator for the wrap-up policy had been in communication with the subcontractor prior to the commencement of the work, “specifically advising that insurance coverage was not automatic” and providing the subcontractor with an enrollment form for the CCIP. Ultimately, the subcontractor “declined to comply with the request,” stating that the subcontractor would "not participate in paying any wrap insurance premiums" – because the subcontractor had its own insurance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Water Alone is Not Property Damage under a CGL policy in Connecticut

    July 22, 2024 —
    The Connecticut Appellate Court recently provided guidance on what does not constitute property damage under a typical contractor’s Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy in Westchester Modular Homes of Fairfield County, Inc. v. Arbella Protection Ins. Co., 224 Conn App. 526 (2024). In this case, the contractor defended construction defect claims brought by an owner and then sued its insurer to recover $500,000 in defense costs for failing to provide a defense under the contractor’s policy. In Connecticut, an insurer is obligated to provide a defense based on what is alleged in a complaint and if it has actual knowledge of any facts establishing a reasonable possibility of coverage. The contractor provided extrinsic evidence for two defects claimed by the owner: (1) windows were installed improperly such that water was collecting and will continue to collect in the window soffit areas and eventually rot the wall, and (2) the vapor barrier was not installed in the second-floor ceiling which will result in water condensation and water damage to the roof structure if not remedied. The insurer relied on typical provisions included in most CGL policies. The insurer has no duty to defend the insured against any suit seeking damages for property damage to which the insurance does not apply. The term “property damage” is defined as “physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property.” Under well-established Connecticut law, the phrase “physical injury” unambiguously connotes damage to tangible property, causing an alteration in appearance, shape, color, or some other material dimension. It is also well-established that claims for property damage caused by defective work are covered under a CGL policy but claims for repair of the defective work itself are not. The insurer denied any duty to defend because no coverage was triggered under the liability policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
    Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

    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