BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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


    If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors

    Don’t Waive Your Right to Arbitrate (Unless You Want To!)

    A Brief Primer on Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien When the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    Risk Protection: Force Majeure Agreements Take on Renewed Relevance

    What You Need to Know About Home Improvement Contracts

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

    Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)

    Paul Tetzloff Elected As Newmeyer & Dillion Managing Partner

    Top Five Legal Mistakes in Construction

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    Sobering Facts for Construction Safety Day

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/4/24) – New CRE Litmus Tests, Tech Integration in Real Estate and a Jump in Investor Home Purchases

    Environmental Law Violations: When you Should Hire a Lawyer

    Staying the Course, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Argument for Exception to Eight-Corners Rule in Determining Duty to Defend

    Remote Depositions in the Post-Covid-19 World

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2019

    One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

    10 Answers to Those Nagging Mechanics Lien Questions Keeping You Up at Night. Kind of

    Private Statutory Cause of Action Under Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act

    Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    New Case Alert: California Federal Court Allows Policy Stacking to Cover Continuous Injury

    At Least 46 Killed in Taiwanese Apartment Building Inferno

    Measure of Damages in Negligent Procurement of Surety Bonds / Insurance

    Agile Project Management in the Construction Industry

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

    Protect Against Design Errors With Owners Protective Professional Indemnity Coverage

    An Expert’s Qualifications are Important

    Thank You for 14 Consecutive Years of Legal Elite Elections

    Cyber Security Insurance and Design Professionals

    City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act

    Houston Bond Issue Jump-Starts 237 Flood Control Projects

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    Court Confirms No Duty to Reimburse for Prophylactic Repairs Prior to Actual Collapse

    Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact

    Is Arbitration Always the Answer?

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2021 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    Terminating Notice of Commencement Without Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    In Search of Cement Replacements

    Fannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' Basements

    A New Statute of Limitations on Construction Claims by VA State Agencies?

    Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts

    Developer Pre-Conditions in CC&Rs Limiting Ability of HOA to Make Construction Defect Claims, Found Unenforceable

    Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Client Alert: California’s Unfair Competition Law (B&P §17200) Preempted by Federal Workplace Safety Law

    Constructive Changes – A Primer

    Two Architecturally Prized Buildings May be Demolished

    SCOTUS to Weigh Landowners' Damage Claim Against Texas DOT

    Last, but NOT Least: Why You Should Take a Closer Look at Your Next Indemnification Clause

    Colorado Temporarily Requires Employers to Provide Sick Leave While Awaiting COVID-19 Testing
    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

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    October 21, 2015 —
    The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's order granting summary judgment to the insurer who denied a defense for a construction defect claim. Steel Supply & Eng'g Co. v. Illinois Nat'. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14363 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2015). Steel Supply contracted with the Carmel Redevelopment Corporation to fabricate and erect steel for a construction project in Carmel, Indiana. After the steel was erected, an iron worker at the site discovered defects in the steel. Subsequent investigations revealed additional defects. Carmel filed suit against Steel Supply for breach of contract. The complaint alleged that a critical connection that Steel Supply designed was inadequate to handle the forces coming onto it. Carmel claimed that the immediate need to remediate the steel damaged Carmel directly, and that other contractors sought damages from Carmel for harm caused by the delays. 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

    Hurricane Harvey Victims Face New Hurdles In Pursuing Coverage

    September 07, 2017 —
    Just as Hurricane Harvey departs the state, a new law in Texas, effective September 1, 2017, is going to make it more difficult for home and business owners to pursue claims against their insurance companies. Prior Texas law imposed liability on an insurer who violated the Insurance Code for the amount of the claim, interest on the amount of the claim at an annual interest rate of 18 percent, and reasonable attorney fees. H.B. 1774 was recently enacted to address legal actions for claims arising from damage to or loss of property due to hailstorms, lightening, wind, hurricane, rainstorm and other natural events. The bill creates additional procedural hurdles before a policy holder can file a lawsuit against the insurer. A written notice must be provided to the insurer at least 61 days before filing a lawsuit. The notice must include a statement of the acts giving rise to the claim, the specific amount alleged to be owed, and amount of reasonable and necessary attorney's fees already incurred by the policy holder. Once notice is received, the statute allows the insurers to send a written request to inspect, photograph, or evaluate the property. 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

    The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction

    December 20, 2021 —
    Last year, I posted regarding the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Woodbridge II, which concluded that the “adverse use” element for prescriptive easement claims only requires the claimant to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2. Thus, Woodbridge II concluded, the claimants acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context. Id. That decision was up for review by the Colorado Supreme Court at the time of my prior post. It has now been affirmed, thereby settling an arguable appellate decision split created by Woodbridge II. See Lo Viento Blanco, LLC v. Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 2021 CO 56 (“Woodbridge”). “Like the division below, and for much the same reasons,” the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed in Woodbridge “that under Colorado law, a claimant’s acknowledgement or recognition of the owner’s title during the claimant’s asserted prescriptive period does not interrupt the prescriptive use or undermine the claimant’s adverse use.” Woodbridge, ¶ 2. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Gabriel’s opinion agreed with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning “that although Woodbridge recognized that it did not hold title, no evidence indicated that it had acted in subordination to the owner’s title.” Id. ¶ at 13. The Court further agreed with Woodbridge II’srejection of Lo Viento’s “permissive use” argument because “the permission offered … was conditional and Woodbridge never agreed to any of the conditions set forth therein.” Id. On that basis, Woodbridge confirmed that “a claimant seeking to establish a prescriptive easement need not show that it asserted exclusive ownership of the property during the prescriptive period,” but only “that its use was without permission or otherwise unauthorized and that it interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Id. at ¶ 23. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

    Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

    July 30, 2015 —
    In Lee v. California Capital Insurance Co. (No. A136280; filed 6/18/15), a California Court of Appeal held that it was error for an appraisal panel to assign loss values to items simply because they were listed in the insured’s scope of loss, and regardless of whether inspection revealed they were undamaged or never existed. California Capital insured a twelve unit apartment building owned by Ms. Lee in Oakland, California. When a fire damaged one unit, the insurer prepared an estimate of $69,255 and paid an undisputed amount of $46,755, which was the amount of the estimate less depreciation and the deductible. But Ms. Lee claimed that six of the units had been damaged, and she retained a public adjuster who submitted a claim exceeding $800,000. This included cleaning, asbestos abatement, reconstruction of the affected apartments, and loss of rent. She claimed burn damage to one unit and smoke damage requiring complete replacement of all the interior rooms of five apartments, along with removal of a portion of the stucco exterior and iron balcony railings and repainting of the entire building. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    KB Homes Sues Condo Buyers over Alleged Cybersquatting and Hacking

    October 22, 2013 —
    Willowbrook, a condominium complex in Lakewood Ranch, Florida has had problems with water intrusion. Now the builder is having problems with some of the residents. National home builder KB Homes is alleging that a pair of Willowbrook home owners who created a web site about their problems have violated federal cybersquatting laws, as the web site names they have registered are close to that KB Homes. The suit alleges that Andrew Smith and Daniel Koehler hope to either get KB Homes to purchase the web site or to buy back their homes. The lawsuit also alleges that three other individuals, William Crismon, Patrick McGettigan, and Armando Oyola-Delgado, conspired to intercept e-mails between KB Home and Dueall Construction. KB Homes claims that the three gained access to a WiFi hotspot used by Dueall. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    November 16, 2020 —
    Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that Super Lawyers has named nineteen of our attorneys as 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars. Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a multiphase selection process in which nominations and evaluations are combined with independent research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis. The objective is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel. The Super Lawyers designation recognizes the top 5% of attorneys in the U.S. and the Rising Stars designation recognizes the top 2.5% of attorneys in the U.S. under the age of forty, as chosen by their peers and through independent research within their practice area. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

    Stay of Coverage Case Appropriate While Court Determines Arbitrability of Dispute

    April 22, 2024 —
    The Fifth Circuit vacated a discovery order issued by the district court and remanded the case for issuance of a stay while the arbitrability of the coverage dispute was reviewed. Cameron Parish Recreation #6 v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., et al., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3804 (5th Cir. Feb. 19, 2024). The plaintiffs purchased surplus lines polices from various insurance companies to provide coverage for commercial properties. The policies included an arbitration provision for resolving any disputes. After plaintiffs were denied coverage for damage to their properties from Hurricane Laura, they sued the insurers. The insurers filed motions to compel arbitration and to stay the case. The district court refused the stay and ordered limited discovery into arbitrability. The insurers appealed. 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

    Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects

    October 14, 2013 —
    While many state Supreme Courts have determined that faulty construction work can be an occurrence under a standard commercial liability policy, the Alabama Supreme Court has taken the contrary view. Writing on the Kilpatrick Townsend blog, Carl A. Salisbury and Edmund M. Kneisel point out that the decision makes Alabama “an outlier,” and they ask, “how much longer will the outliers hold out?” They note that in the underlying construction defect case, “the arbitrator awarded $3 million in compensatory damages to the homeowners because of improperly installed flashing; improperly installed brick; the lack of weep holes in the brick; improperly installed doors and windows; improper construction of the upper porches; faulty construction of the roof; improper installation of a bathtub.” They summarize: “the house must have leaked like a colander.” When the insurer denied coverage, the contractor sued. The insurer argued that “the CGL policy form does not cover construction-related acts or omissions because such acts are not an insured ‘occurrence.’” Mr. Salisbury and Mr. Kneisel point out that “the Alabama Supreme Court agreed.” The problem they see is that “if there is no insurance for any intentional act, then insurance is simply a rip-off — it covers nothing.” They quote Justice Benjamin Cardozo to this effect: “To restrict insurance to cases where liability is incurred without fault of the insured would reduce indemnity to a shadow.” Their argument is that the Alabama decision was not the “correct position,” as exemplified by recent decisions from West Virginia, North Dakota, Connecticut and Georgia. The case “was a prime opportunity for the Alabama Supreme Court to leave the ranks of the outliers and join the majority view.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of