BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnesses
    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


    Parties to an Agreement to Arbitrate May be Compelled to Arbitrate with Non-Parties

    Insurer's Appeal of Jury Verdict Rejected by Tenth Circuit

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Based Upon Exclusion for Contractual Assumption of Liability

    OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

    Benefit of the Coblentz Agreement and Consent Judgment

    Why Federal and State Agencies are Considering Converting from a “Gallons Consumed” to a “Road Usage” Tax – And What are the Risks to the Consumer?

    Ireland Said to Plan Home Loans Limits to Prevent Bubble

    Be Careful with Good Faith Payments

    Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    KY Mining Accident Not a Covered Occurrence Under Commercial General Liability Policy

    Builders Seek to Modify Scaffold Law

    1 De Haro: A Case Study on Successful Cross-Laminated Timber Design and Construction in San Francisco

    WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics

    Ortega Outbids Pros to Build $10 Billion Property Empire

    Rhode Island Finds Pollution Exclusion Ambiguous, Orders Coverage for Home Heating Oil Leak

    Brown and Caldwell Team with AECOM for Landmark Pure Water Southern California Program

    Home Improvement in U.S. Slowing or Still Intact -- Which Is It?

    Colorado’s Abbreviated Legislative Session Offers Builders a Reprieve

    Quick Note: Staying, Not Dismissing, Arbitrable Disputes Under Federal Arbitration Act

    Can Your Small Business Afford to Risk the Imminent Threat of a Cyber Incident?

    How AI and Machine Learning Are Helping Construction Reduce Risk and Improve Margins

    UK Agency Seeks Stricter Punishments for Illegal Wastewater Discharges

    Three Reasons Lean Construction Principles Are Still Valid

    Texas and Georgia Are Paying the Price for Sprawl

    Busting Major Alternative-Lending Myths

    Increasing Use of Construction Job Cameras

    The Other Side of the North Dakota Oil Boom: Evictions

    Social Engineering Scams Are On the Rise – Do I Have Insurance Coverage for That?

    California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

    BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

    There Is No Sympathy If You Fail to Read Closely the Final Negotiated Construction Contract

    Construction Payment Remedies: You May be Able to Skate by, But Why?

    How to Cool Down Parks in Hot Cities

    Panthers Withdraw City, County Deal Over Abandoned Facility

    Recovering Time and Costs from Hurricane Helene: Force Majeure Solutions for Contractors

    Buyer Alleges Condo Full of Mold and Mice

    Nevada Update: Nevada Commissioner of Insurance Updates Burning Limits Statute with Emergency Regulation

    OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected

    Thank You!

    On-Site Supersensing and the Future of Construction Automation – Discussion with Aviad Almagor

    English v. RKK- There is Even More to the Story

    Texas Supreme Court Rules on Contractual Liability Exclusion in Construction Cases

    Construction Firm Settles Suit Over 2012 Calif. Wildfire

    Architectural Democracy – Interview with Pedro Aibéo

    What Sustainable Building Materials Will the Construction Industry Rely on in 2020?

    OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy: What Employers on Construction Sites Need to Know

    Partner John Toohey is Nominated for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!
    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

    Coverage Exists for Landlord as Additional Insured

    September 03, 2014 —
    The Indiana Court of Appeals determined the landlord was entitled to coverage as an additional insured under the tenant's policy. Selective Ins. Co. v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 365 (Ind. Ct. App. July 30, 2014). Rangeline, LLC owned a warehouse. Rangeline negotiated a lease with Hammons Storage to store insulation manufactured by Knauf Insulation. Pursuant to requirements in the lease, Hammons secured liability coverage with Erie Insurance naming Rangeline as an additional insured. After Hammons moved insulation into the warehouse for storage, the pipes of the sprinkler system burst, causing damage to the insulation. The cause of the loss was determined to be water from the system freezing, which led to the cast iron fittings cracking, causing the failure of the sprinkler heads. 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

    Louisiana Court Applies Manifestation Trigger to Affirm Denial of Coverage

    June 10, 2015 —
    Applying the manifestation trigger, the Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed denial of coverage where the property damage manifested after the policy period expired. Landry v. Williamson, 2015 La. App. Unpub. LEXIS 213 (La. Ct. App. May 1, 2015). On August 28, 2002, the Burkarts purchased a home from the Williamsons. One month later, water started leaking into the home during periods of rainfall. Suit was filed against the contractor, who was insured by Scottsdale. Scottsdale, who was added as a defendant, filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it did not insure the developer at the time the alleged property damage occurred. Scottsdale's policy expired on August 1, 2002. The trial court granted Scottsdale's motion, finding coverage under its policy was not triggered because no property damage occurred during the policy period. 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

    NYC Condo Skyscraper's Builder Wins a Round -- With a Catch

    November 15, 2017 —
    The battle over whether an 800-foot condo tower planned for Manhattan’s East Side can be built to its full height took a step forward Wednesday -- with city officials saying both yes, and no. A years-long neighborhood lobbying effort to cap the height of new towers near the East 50s riverfront won an endorsement Wednesday from the planning commission, which agreed to rezone the area in a way that would make skyscraping condo towers impossible to build. But commissioners also voted to allow Sutton 58, the under-construction project that inspired the rezoning push, to be grandfathered in under the new law, and proceed as is. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg

    Hawaii Bill Preserves Insurance Coverage in Lava Zones

    May 20, 2015 —
    The Hawaii legislature passed a bill in its recently concluded session to protect homeowners and businesses affected by lava flows from losing coverage. The Puna district on the Big Island was severely impacted by the Pu`u O`o lava flow as it crept closer to homes, businesses, schools and populated areas. Problems were created by the imposition of a moratorium on the sale of new policies in certain areas of the Puna district. SB 589 grants relief to homeowners who have had continuous insurance in lava zone areas that are declared to be in a state of emergency. The bill (1) allows the homeowners to have their policies renewed, (2) permits continued coverage for homeowners who wish to sell their homes, (3) grants coverage for new buyers of an insured property, and (4) allows homeowners who have not previously had insurance to purchase coverage from the Hawaii Property Insurance Association. 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

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    September 20, 2017 —
    The New Jersey Law Journal reported that New Jersey Supreme Court “justices reversed an Appellate Division ruling that found three suits filed against contractors by the Palisades at Fort Lee Condominium Association on various dates in March and April 2009 and September 2010 were within the six-year limit because the association received notice of construction defects in the building in an engineer's report issued in June 2007.” The justices stated that the statute of limitations is not reset when property changes hands: "An owner of a building cannot convey greater property rights to a purchaser than the owner possessed. If the building's owner knew or reasonably should have known of construction defects at the time of the sale of the property, the purchaser takes title subject to the original owner's right—and any limitation on that right—to file a claim against the architect and contractors." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    March 28, 2012 —

    The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in the case La Tierra de Simmons Familia Ltd. V. Main Event Entertainment, LP. The trial court had found for Main Event. On appeal, the court threw out some of the grounds on which the trial court had reached its decision.

    The case involved two commercial lots in northwest Austin, Texas. The uphill tract (Phase III of the Anderson Arbor development) diverts its runoff onto the lower tract (the “Ballard tract”). The owners of the Ballard tract claim that “the drainage system was designed or constructed in a manner that has damaged and continues to damage the Ballard tract.”

    Both tracts have undergone changes of ownership since the construction of the drainage system in 2004. At the time the drainage system was constructed, the parcel was owned by Sears Roebuck and Co. Sears later sold the property. Main Event Entertainment is the current tenant. Likewise, the Ballard tract was previously owned by the Ballard Estate which sold the property to La Tierra on an “as is” basis in 2007.

    After La Tierra bought the Ballard tract, La Tierra’s engineer “witnessed and videotaped what he described as ‘flooding’ on the Ballard tract caused by storm water discharge from the Anderson Arbor drainage system during a rainfall event.” La Tierra determined that an adequate drainage system would cost about $204,000. Development plans were put on hold.

    La Tierra sued Main Event and various other parties associated with the uphill tract, seeking “actual damages for (1) decrease and loss in rental income due to delay in obtaining the development permit, (2) interest on carrying costs during that time period, (3) the cost to build a water conveyance system on the Ballard tract, (4) engineering fees incurred to redesign the water conveyance system, (5) unspecified out-of-pocket real estate expenses, and (6) property devaluation occasioned by the need to construct an expensive water conveyance system.” The trial court never reached these claims, ruling instead that La Tierra lacked standing, that its claims were barred under the statute of limitations, and that there was no evidence of damage.

    La Tierra appealed, arguing that “(1) the summary-judgment evidence does not conclusively establish that property damage claims accrued or were discovered prior to September 11, 2007, which is within the limitations period and was after La Tierra purchased the property; (2) even if the property was damaged before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract, standing exists based on the assignments of interest from the Ballard Estate heirs, and the discovery rule tolls limitations until the injury was discovered on September 11, 2007; (3) limitations does not bar La Tierra's request for injunctive relief; (4) La Tierra's water code claim against Main Event and M.E.E.P. is viable based on their control over the drainage system, which makes them necessary and indispensable parties for injunctive relief; (5) La Tierra presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact issue on damages, causation, and other essential elements of its causes of action; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the defendants' objections to La Tierra's summary-judgment evidence.”

    The appeals court concluded that La Tierra’s second claim was irrelevant to standing, as La Tierra “obtained assignments from the Ballard Estate heirs ? nearly one year after the lawsuit was initially filed.” Nor did the court accept their first point. The water system had been operating unaltered since January, 2004, with monthly maintenance and inspection to maintain its designed operation. Further, a feasibility report La Tierra received stated that “over sixteen acres drain into those ponds, and thus onto this site.” The court noted that “the underlying facts giving rise to a cause of action were known before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract.”

    The court concluded that the drainage issue is a permanent injury, but that it “accrued before La Tierra acquired an ownership interest in the property.” As La Tierra has standing, the appeals court ruled that it was improper for the trial court to rule on the issues. The appeals court dismissed the questions of whether the case was barred under the statute of limitation and also the question of whether or not La Tierra had damages.

    As the issue of standing would not allow La Tierra to bring the suit, the appeals court found for the defendants, dismissing the case for this single reason, and otherwise affirming the ruling of the lower court.

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Negligence Against a Construction Manager Agent

    March 22, 2018 —

    Can a construction manager-agent / owner’s representative hired directly by the owner be liable to the general contractor in negligence? An argument likely posited by many general contractors on projects gone awry where there is a separate construction manager. Well, here is an interesting case out of Louisiana that supports a negligence claim against a construction manager-agent.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

    June 05, 2017 —
    The Fourth District California Court of Appeal published its decision, Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1129, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895, et. seq.) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier’s negligence or breach of contract. In this case, Acqua Vista Homeowners Association (“the HOA”) sued MWI, a supplier of Chinese pipe used in the construction of the Acqua Vista condominium development. The HOA’s complaint asserted a single cause of action for violation of SB800 standards, and alleged that defective cast iron pipe was used throughout the building. At trial, the HOA presented evidence that the pipes supplied by MWI contained manufacturing defects, that they leaked, and that the leaks had caused damage to various parts of the condominium development. The jury returned a special verdict against MWI, and the trial court entered a judgment against MWI in the amount of $23,955,796.28, reflecting the jury’s finding that MWI was 92% responsible for the HOA’s damages. MWI filed a motion for a directed verdict prior to the jury’s verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict following the entry of judgment, both on the grounds that the HOA had failed to present any evidence that MWI had caused a SB800 violation as a result of its negligence or breach of contract, and had therefore failed to prove negligence and causation as required by SB800. MWI relied on the Fourth District’s prior decision in Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, and its interpretation therein of Civil Code §936, which states, in relevant part, that the statute applies “to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract….” (emphasis added.) However, the trial court denied both motions, relying on the last sentence of Civil Code §936, which states in part, “[T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any…material supplier…with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply.” Reprinted courtesy of Jon A. Turigliatto, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of