BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction 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


    Tesla Finishes First Solar Roofs—Including Elon's House

    Time to Repair Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws?

    An Era of Legends

    Balestreri Potocki & Holmes Attorneys Named 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Star

    ASCE Joins White House Summit on Building Climate-Resilient Communities

    Greystone on Remand Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment To Bar Coverage For Construction Defects

    Congratulations to San Diego Partner Johnpaul Salem and Senior Associate Scott Hoy for Obtaining a Complete Defense Verdict!

    Brenner Base Tunnelers Conquer Peaks and Valleys in the Alps

    Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

    Condominium's Agent Owes No Duty to Injured Apartment Owner

    Firm Claims Construction Defects in Hawaiian Homes

    Reinsurer's Obligation to Provide Coverage Determined Under English Law

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    PAGA Right of Action Not Applicable to Construction Workers Under Collective Bargaining Agreement

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Architect Norman Foster Tells COP26: Change 'Traditional' City Design to Combat Climate Change

    Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

    ISO’s Flood Exclusion Amendments and Hurricane Ian Claims

    Hunton Insurance Practice, Partners Recognized by The Legal 500

    War-Torn Ukraine Looks to Europe’s Green Plans for Reconstruction Ideas

    Public-Employee Union Fees, Water Wars Are Key in High Court Rulings

    Recycling Our Cities, One Building at a Time

    Blackstone to Buy Cosmopolitan Resort for $1.73 Billion

    California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

    Cuomo Proposes $1.7 Billion Property-Tax Break for New York

    Insurer in Bad Faith Due to Adjuster's Failure to Keep Abreast of Case Law

    Power & Energy - Emerging Insurance Coverage Cases of Interest

    On Rehearing, Fifth Circuit Finds Contractual-Liability Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Pollution Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor

    You Can Now Build a Multi-Million Dollar Home via Your iPad

    Five Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers in America© 2021

    Five Keys to Driving Digital Transformation in Engineering and Construction

    Thousands of London Residents Evacuated due to Fire Hazards

    Don’t Fall in Trap of Buying the Cheapest Insurance Policy as it May be Bad for Your Business Risks and Needs

    Union Handbilling: When, Where, and Why it is Legal

    Certificates of Merit: Is Your Texas Certificate Sufficient?

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    New York Team’s Win Limits Scope of Property Owners’ Duties to Workers for Hazards Inherent in Their Work

    Is the Sky Actually Falling (on Green Building)?

    Florida Supreme Court Adopts Federal Summary Judgment Standard, Substantially Conforming Florida’s Rule 1.510 to Federal Rule 56

    Construction Costs Must Be Reasonable

    California Appellate Court Rules That Mistakenly Grading the Wrong Land Is Not an Accident

    Keeping Detailed Records: The Best Defense to Constructive Eviction

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Tar Escaping From Roof

    CA Court of Appeal Reinstates Class Action Construction Defect Claims Against Homebuilder

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    Couple Claims ADA Renovation Lead to Construction Defects

    Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim
    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

    Protecting Your Business From Liability Claims Stemming From COVID-19 Exposure

    June 01, 2020 —
    Businesses of every nature – including grocery stores, banks, daycares, gyms and restaurants – may face increasing liability claims from customers and third parties claiming to have been exposed to the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, while at their location. The novel virus raises issues as to whether businesses have a heightened duty of care to their customers, and what type of exposure businesses face if a customer claims to have been exposed to COVID-19 while at their premises. Recently, a lawsuit was filed against Princess Cruise lines for gross negligence in allowing passengers to be exposed to COVID-19 on a cruise ship. The lawsuit alleges that the cruise ship was allowed to go out to sea knowing that it was infected from two previous passengers who came down with symptoms of COVID-19. It further claims that the passengers were not warned of the potential exposure either before or after they boarded the ship. In other news reports around the country, business owners have reported taking extraordinary precautions to prevent customers’ risk of contracting COVID-19. For example, one grocery store recently reported that it discarded $35,000 worth of food after a customer coughed on fresh produce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Andrew Hamelsky, Jenifer Scarcella and Joshua Tumen Mr. Hamelsky may be contacted at hamelskya@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Scarcella may be contacted at scarcellaj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Tumen may be contacted at tumenj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    North Dakota Universities Crumble as Oil Cash Pours In

    August 27, 2014 —
    North Dakota is struggling to finance deteriorating public universities even as it experiences the biggest energy boom in its history, raising concern that less prosperous states will face more serious funding challenges. Students returning this week will attend classes in buildings without adequate ventilation or fire detection systems and in historic landmarks with buckling foundations. A space crunch is making it difficult for researchers to obtain grants and putting the accreditation of several programs at risk, administrators say. “It’s embarrassing,” said North Dakota state Representative Kathy Hawken, a Republican from Fargo who sits on the higher education funding and budget committees. “We have a divided legislature on higher ed: Some think we put too much money into it and some think we don’t put enough. Buildings aren’t people, so we don’t put dollars there.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Oldham, Bloomberg
    Ms. Oldham may be contacted at joldham1@bloomberg.net

    Hammer & Hand’s Top Ten Predictions for US High Performance Building in 2014

    January 22, 2014 —
    On Hammer & Hand’s blog, Sam Hagerman, Skylar Swinford, and Dan Whitmore discuss how they expect US high performance building policy to evolve in 2014. The three consultants and builders have built “some of the most notable high performance green building projects around, including Karuna House,” “Pumpkin Ridge Passive House,” and the “Glasswood Commercial Passive House Retrofit,” according to the blog. Hagerman and Whitmore also have served on the Passive House Alliance US board. Predictions cover topics such as Net Zero Energy to Net Positive Energy buildings, renewable energy productions, building energy codes, CO2 heat pumps, and more. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Compliance Doesn’t Pay: Compliance Evidence Inadmissible in Strict Liability Actions

    February 05, 2024 —
    In Sullivan v. Werner Co., No. 18 EAP 2022, 2023 Pa. LEXIS 1715 (Dec. 22, 2023), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Supreme Court) clarified that in light of its decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 628 Pa. 296 (2014), evidence that a product complied with industry standards is inadmissible in an action involving strict product liability. In Tincher, the Supreme Court overruled prior case law and reaffirmed that Pennsylvania is a Second Restatement Jurisdiction. As stated in Sullivan, discussing Tincher, under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, a “seller of a product has a duty to provide a product that is free from ‘a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer or [the consumer’s] property.’ To prove breach of this duty, a ‘plaintiff must prove that a seller (manufacturer or distributor) placed on the market a product in a “defective condition.”” 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

    Massachusetts Pulls Phased Trigger On Its Statute of Repose

    December 21, 2020 —
    In D’Allesandro v. Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC, 486 Mass 150, 2020 Mass. LEXIS 721, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts answered a certified question regarding how to apply the Massachusetts statute of repose, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2B, in regards to phased construction projects. The court held that, in this context, the completion of each individual “improvement” to its intended use, or the substantial completion of the individual building and the taking of possession for occupancy by the owner or owners, triggers the statute of repose with respect to the common areas and limited common areas of that building. Additionally, the court held that where a particular improvement is integral to, and intended to serve, multiple buildings (or the development as a whole), the statute of repose is triggered when the discrete improvement is substantially complete and open to its intended use. In D’Allesandro, the action arose out of the construction, marketing, sale and management of the Hewitts Landing Condominium (the Condominium) project. Ultimately, 150 units were constructed over 24 phases of construction, enclosed in 28 different buildings. Throughout construction, the project’s architect submitted declarations to the Town of Hingham swearing that the individual units were “substantially complete” and could be occupied for their intended use. The Town of Hingham then issued certificates of occupancy for the unit or building. 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

    Massachusetts Business Court Addresses Defense Cost Allocation and Non-Cumulation Provisions in Long-Tail Context

    March 06, 2022 —
    A business court in Massachusetts has weighed in on two key issues affecting allocation of insurance coverage for long-tail liabilities in Massachusetts. Specifically, in Crosby Valve LLC et al. v. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, et al.,[1] involving asbestos bodily injury claims, Judge Kenneth Salinger of the Suffolk County Business Litigation Session addressed:
    • whether defense costs in long-tail cases were subject to the same pro rata allocation scheme the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) adopted to govern successively triggered insurers' indemnity obligations in Boston Gas Company v. Century Indemnity Company;[2] and
    • whether “non-cumulation” provisions, like those addressed by the New York Court of Appeals in Matter of Viking Pump,[3] were consistent with this pro rata allocation methodology.
    As to the first issue — i.e., allocation of defense costs — Judge Salinger declined to follow Boston Gas, and found the SJC’s holding in that case was limited to an insurers’ indemnity obligations. The SJC in Boston Gas had focused on the language of the policy insuring agreement, saying “[t]his policy applies to ... property damage ... which occurs anywhere during the policy period.” The SJC had also pointed to the policy definition of “occurrence” as “an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.”[4] Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams LLP and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    August 16, 2021 —
    August 10, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) commends the U.S. Senate for passing the historic, bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The $1.2 trillion deal will lay the foundation for extensive improvements in the nation’s roadways, bridges, railways, waterways and broadband access. “Investing in infrastructure will create millions of jobs across the country, growing our national and local economies in both the short and long term,” said SFAA president and CEO, Lee Covington. “The surety industry fully supports this investment and will continue to provide the essential protections necessary to support our country’s infrastructure needs through our suite of products and services.” SFAA also commends the inclusion of the Van Hollen 2354 amendment to the bill, accepted by a unanimous vote of 97-0. The amendment requires payment and performance bonds on all federally-financed infrastructure projects receiving loans and grants under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), protecting taxpayers’ dollars, ensuring project completion, protecting local small business contractors and workers, and promoting economic growth. The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a trade association of more than 425 insurance companies that write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. SFAA is licensed as a rating or advisory organization in all states and it has been designated by state insurance departments as a statistical agent for the reporting of fidelity and surety experience. https://www.surety.org/ Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only

    April 05, 2017 —
    The Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's determination that there was no coverage under the builder's risk policy. Gerald H. Phipps, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2764 (10th Cir. Feb. 16, 2017). GH Phipps Construction Company (GHP) was hired to renovate and expand the University of Denver's library. GHP was completing installation of a new roof on the library when water from melting snow leaked into the building. The water damaged existing drywall and insulation in the stairwells and elevator shafts that GHP planned to preserve and update. Before the snow melt mishap, GHP had completed some preliminary work in the damaged areas to designate locations for future installation of mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems. But GHP had not yet installed any new materials, updated any lighting fixtures, or patched and painted any existing drywall in the damaged areas. 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