BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 5% in Year to June

    Complying With Data Breach Regulations in the Construction Industry

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion to Reject Claim for Construction Defects Upheld

    Dusseldorf Evacuates About 4,000 as World War II Bomb Defused

    Mechanics Lien Release Bond – What Happens Now? What exactly is a Mechanics Lien and Why Might it Need to be Released?

    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

    Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted

    Federal Court Strikes Down 'Persuader' Rule

    Fire Consultants Cannot Base Opinions on Speculation

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim

    Agree First or it May Cost You Later

    Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games

    EEOC Chair Issues New Report “Building for the Future: Advancing Equal Employment Opportunity in the Construction Industry”

    Substitute Materials — What Are Your Duties? What Are Your Risks? (Law Note)

    Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    What to do about California’s Defect-Ridden Board of Equalization Building

    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    Thank You for Seven Years of Election to Super Lawyers

    Managing Narrative, Capturing Context, and Building Together: Talking VR and AEC with David Weir-McCall

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision

    Is Ohio’s Buckeye Lake Dam Safe?

    Buildings Don't Have To Be Bird-Killers

    Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy

    Contractor Wins in Arbitration Only to Lose Before the Superior Court on Section 7031 Claim

    Adjuster's Report No Substitute for Proof of Loss Under Flood Policy

    Remote Work Issues to Consider in Light of COVID-19

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

    Digitalizing the Hospital Design Requirements Process

    CGL Policy Covering Attorney’s Fees in Property Damage Claims

    The Basics of Subcontractor Defaults – Key Considerations

    Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Area Variance Standard; Property Owners May Obtain an Area Variance When Special Circumstances Existed at Purchase

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Insurer Must Defend Oil Company Against Entire Lawsuit

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

    The World’s Largest 3D-Printed Neighborhood Is Here

    2021 Executive Insights: Leaders in Construction Law

    Hotel Claims Construction Defect Could Have Caused Collapse

    Lucky No. 7: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Pro-Policyholder Decision Regarding Additional Insured Coverage for Upstream Parties

    What’s in a Name? Trademarks and Construction

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    Construction Trust Fund Statutes: Know What’s Required in the State Where Your Project Is Underway

    Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

    Gilbane Project Exec Completes His Mission Against the Odds

    Town Sues over Defective Work on Sewer Lines

    What to Expect From the New Self-Retracting Devices Standard

    Spa High-Rise Residents Frustrated by Construction Defects

    Home Construction Slows in Las Vegas

    Massachusetts Federal Court Rejects Adria Towers, Finds Construction Defects Not an “Occurrence”

    Wilke Fleury Celebrates the Addition of Two New Partners
    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

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

    November 07, 2012 —
    A Michigan couple seeks to void their purchase of a condo in Texas after discovering that the complex was undergoing a construction defect lawsuit. ABQ Journal reports that Charles M. Lea and Olga Y. Ziabrikova said that they would not have purchased the condo if they had known the association was already alleging construction defects. The condo association discovered the defects “by at least late 2010,” according to the suit. The couple bought their condo in August 2011 and heard of the defects only in March 2012. The couple notes that no one involved with the sale informed them of the construction defect complaints. The community association’s lawsuit states that problems have lead to $2.5 million in damages. The developer, Vegas Verde Condo Partners, have filed a general denial of the construction problems. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor Sues License Board

    June 30, 2011 —

    Judge Kendall J. Newman of the US District Court handed down a decision on June 24 on the case of Kent v California Department of Consumer Affairs. Mr. Kent, appearing as his own counsel, had brought the suit against the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the Contractors State Licensing Board after he was arrested in a sting operation and, as the plaintiff put it, “was absurdly arrested and uncooperatively detained for a time longer than necessary or allowed by law under the false pretense of contracting with out a license.” Mr. Kent’s alleged that Rick Lopez, one of the defendants, formed him to read allow from the California Business and Professions Code. He said he was later handcuffed and placed in an uncomfortable chair, “enduring physical pain and emotional agony.”

    Although Kent was given a Notice to Appear, he alleged that a further defendant, Stuart Rind, “closed the plaintiff’s case marked citation A7773 without giving written notice to anyone.” As a result, the Placer County District Attorney’s Office had no record of his Notice to Appear.

    Kent alleged that subsequently his firm was essentially shut down for two years and that he was prevented from “legally contracting or selling services for any other contractor or qualifying for any other licensed capacity governed by the CSLB.” After this, the CSLB suspended the license for his firm, DSI Construction. He was assessed a $1,500 fine, after which he claims he sent a letter to the CSLB demanding money damages. The judge noted that the letter was not included in the plaintiff’s Ninth Amended Complaint.

    Judge Kendall recommended that the plaintiff’s Complaints be dismissed, although he did allow that sixth, and perhaps the eighth and ninth, could be amended with a tenth amended complaint.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Three Construction Workers Injured at Former GM Plant

    March 26, 2014 —
    In Linden, New Jersey, three construction workers were injured “when they were apparently struck by steel girders while working at the former General Motors site” police told NJ.com. Mayor Richard Gerbounka stated that the “[s]ix struts that would support the deck or ceiling of a warehouse collapsed.” He also mentioned that the city “has been trying to redevelop the former General Motors site for years, but has run into several obstacles, including lawsuits from nearby businesses opposed to retail construction.” Several construction vehicles were “nearly buried under” debris and “[a]t least one I-beam girder and several decking struts—all metal—remain across several heavy construction vehicles,” NJ.com reported. The owner of the vehicles stated “he was told that workers were standing around the vehicles preparing to start their day when high winds knocked down at least one I-beam and several metal decking struts.” In another article published late afternoon on March 26th, NJ.com reported that “high winds” were the cause of the accident. “The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration is investigating the accident and all work at the site has been suspended pending the investigation,” according to the article. “Officials said OSHA inspectors had been at the scene once before, but declined to give details because of a continuing investigation.” Read the full story, NJ.com AM... Read the full story, NJ.com PM... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Update Regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct.

    April 28, 2016 —
    The construction industry continues to await the California Supreme Court's highly anticipated decision regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.). The Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the conflict presented by the Fourth Appellate District Court's holding in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and rejection of the same by the Fifth Appellate District Court in McMillin Albany. The issue is whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2013. CGDRB has been closely monitoring the progress of the case and understands that the real parties in interest have submitted their opening brief on the merits. The Court granted Petitioners a further and final extension to file the answer brief on the merits. The answer deadline is Monday April 25, 2016. Stay tuned. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    December 21, 2016 —
    The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's issuance of the insurer's motion for summary judgment, thereby rejecting the insureds' negligence per se claim for failure to pay benefits. Braun-Salinas v. Am Family Ins. Group, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19555 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2016). The insureds argued that Oregon recognized a negligence per se claim based on an insurer's failure to pay benefits in violation of the statutory standard under state law. Oregon appellate courts, however, only allowed a negligence per se claim only where a negligence claim otherwise existed. The Oregon courts had previously rejected a statutory theory, holding that a violation of the statute did not give rise to a tort action. 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

    Fence Attached to Building Covered Under Dwelling Provisions

    March 01, 2017 —
    The Texas Supreme Court determined that a damaged fence attached to the insureds' dwelling was covered under the dwelling provisions, not the "other structure" portion of the policy. Nassar v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2017 Tex. LEXIS 113 (Tex. Jan. 27 ,2017). The insureds' owned six acres of property. Hurricane Ike caused significant damage to the property on September 13, 2008. The insureds submitted a claim to Liberty Mutual under their homeowners' policy. Liberty Mutual paid several claims, but disputes arose over the value of various items of damaged property, including the fencing on the property. The insured's fencing spanned over 4,000 linear feet, including a white picket fence at the northeast corner of the dwelling, an ornamental iron fence in front of the dwelling, numerous cross fences, garden fences, and a larger, perimeter fence. 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

    Building in the Age of Technology: Improving Profitability and Jobsite Safety

    June 10, 2019 —
    New virtual design and construction (VDC) technologies are quickly shifting how the AEC industry is designing, documenting and building. From the use of new software, apps and laser scanners, to the deployment of drones and robots, many early adopters are benefitting from fully integrating these solutions into their workflows. Virtual and Augmented Reality In an industry where collaboration is becoming increasingly important, regardless of the firm size, VR is enabling stakeholders to “see” and “walk” through a building before ground is broken. In other words, teams can foresee issues, ask questions and provide feedback in the preconstruction phase. The inclusion of AR and VR in the daily workflows of AEC firms signifies expedited decision-making, reduced rework and real-time collaboration, which in turn translates to a reduction of unexpected costs. Reprinted courtesy of Maria Laguarda-Mallo, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Ms. Laguarda-Mayllo may be contacted at maria.laguarda-mallo@viatechnik.com

    A Property Tax Exemption, Misapplied, in Texas

    June 18, 2019 —
    In an important ruling for Texas businesses, the Texas Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the TCEQ misapplied the Texas property tax’s exemption for specified pollution control equipment. Since 1993, the Texas Constitution has included a provision which authorizes the Texas Legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation “all or part of real and personal property used … wholly or partly … for the control or reduction of air, water or land pollution.” This provision is implemented by Section 11.31 of the Texas Tax Code, which is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (See the rules at Title 30, Chapter 17 of the Texas Administrative Code.) If the Executive Director of the TCEQ determines that the equipment is used wholly or partly for pollution control, he issues a “positive use determination”; in the event it does not, the Executive Director issues a “negative use determination and rejects the application for the exemption. In 2007, Section 11.31 was amended at 11.31 (k) to list several items of equipment that are presumed to be pollution-control equipment, including “heat recovery steam generators” or HRSGs. This equipment is used by powerplants to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions that are the product of generation of electricity. Several applications were submitted to the TCEQ by the Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, seeking a tax exemption for its HRSG units. In July 2012, the TCEQ denied these applications, with the flat declaration that HRSGs are not pollution-control equipment—“they are used solely for production.” The Brazos Cooperative sued the Commission, and on May 3, 2019, in the case of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. TCEQ, the Texas Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion reversing the Commission, and the lower court (the Eight Court of Appeals, sitting in El Paso) that affirmed the Commission’s action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com