BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction 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


    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    Florida Court Puts the Claim of Landlord’s Insurer In The No-Fly Zone

    Sobering Facts for Construction Safety Day

    California Court Broadly Interprets Insurance Policy’s “Liability Arising Out of” Language

    43% of U.S. Homes in High Natural Disaster Risk Areas

    Licensing Mistakes That Can Continue to Haunt You

    Coffee Beans, Mars and the 50 States: Civil Code 1542 Waivers and Latent Defects

    The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    Maine Court Allows $1B Hydropower Transmission Project to Proceed

    Massachusetts Pulls Phased Trigger On Its Statute of Repose

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act

    Concerns About On-the-job Safety Persist

    Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

    Minnesota Senate Office Building Called Unconstitutional

    Benefits and Pitfalls of Partnerships Between Companies

    Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial

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

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds that Subrogation Waiver Does Not Violate Statute Prohibiting Limitation on Tort Liability in Construction Contracts

    US Appeals Court Slams FERC on Long-Muddled State Environmental Permits

    Constructive Suspension (Suspension Outside of an Express Order)

    User Interface With a Building – Interview with Esa Halmetoja of Senate Properties

    Mitigate Construction Risk Through Use of Contingency

    Insurer Must Pay for Matching Siding of Insured's Buildings

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Kept Climbing in January

    Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Bars Coverage for Collapse of Building

    Courts Take Another Swipe at the Implied Warranty of the Plans and Specifications

    No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

    California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

    COVID-19 Likely No Longer Covered Under Force Majeure

    BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

    CSLB Begins Processing Applications for New B-2 License

    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

    NYC Developer Embraces Religion in Search for Condo Sites

    Six Inducted into California Homebuilding Hall of Fame

    Insured's Claim for Cyber Coverage Rejected

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

    Harmon Tower Construction Defects Update: Who’s To Blame?

    Florida Self-Insured Retention Satisfaction and Made Whole Doctrine

    Chinese Telecommunications Ban to Expand to Federally Funded Contracts Effective November 12, 2020

    Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation

    Terminating Contracts for Convenience — “Just Because”

    New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: RACHEL CLANCY

    Investing in Metaverse Real Estate: Mind the Gap Between Recognized and Realized Potential

    Ninth Circuit Court Weighs In On Insurance Coverage For COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Nevada for Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Alaska Supreme Court Finds Insurer Owes No Independent Duty to Injured Party
    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

    Vacation Rentals: Liability of the Owner for Injury Suffered by the Renter

    May 13, 2019 —
    With the explosion of the “private” rental business wherein residential property owners rent their house or condo on a short-term basis to third-parties, certain legal issues have arisen with regard to the duties owed by the property owner to the renter. A recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Haynes-Garrett v. Dunn, 818 S.E.2d 798 (Va. 2018), addressed that issue. In that case, the property owners owned a rental house in Virginia Beach. The property was not the owners’ main residence, but rather a vacation home that was sometimes used by the owners, but mostly used as a rental. The issue addressed by the court was whether – for the purpose of evaluating the owners’ duty of care to the renter – the relationship should be classified as a “landlord-tenant” relationship or an “innkeeper-guest” relationship. This classification was important because the duties of the owner to the renter were significantly different depending on the category. In the landlord-tenant arena, under Virginia law, the landlord has no duty to maintain the property in a safe condition because the property is deemed to be under the tenant’s exclusive control. (An exception being concealment or fraud by the landlord as to some defect in the premises that is known to the landlord but unknown to the tenant.) Assuming that exception does not apply, the tenant takes the premises in whatever condition they may be in, thus assuming all risk of personal injury from defects or dangerous conditions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

    Mitsubishi Estate to Rebuild Apartments After Defects Found

    March 19, 2014 —
    Mitsubishi Estate Co. (8802), Japan’s biggest developer by market value, will rebuild a Tokyo residential complex where it stopped selling apartments that went for as much as 350 million yen ($3.4 million) after finding defects. The reconstruction will take about three to four years to complete, and builder Kajima Corp. will be in charge of the project and cover the cost, said Masayuki Watanabe, a spokesman at Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Estate. The building was constructed by Kajima along with Kandenko (1942) Co., according to the developer. Mitsubishi Estate stopped selling apartments in the building in central Tokyo’s upscale Aoyama neighborhood after finding it needed repairs, including to some of the pipes, the developer said in an e-mail on Feb. 3. Eighty-three out of 86 units were under contract and were expected to be handed over to the owners on March 20, the company said last month. Ms. Chu may be contacted at kchu2@bloomberg.net; Mr. Hyuga may be contacted at thyuga@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen Chu and Takahiko Hyuga, Bloomberg

    North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims

    January 04, 2023 —
    On December 16, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 2022 N.C. LEXIS 1122 (Dec. 16, 2022), in which it addressed coverage issues arising out of claims by individuals alleging injury from exposure to benzene contained in the insured’s products. Affirming in part and reversing in part the intermediate appellate court’s decision, the court held: (1) an “exposure trigger” applied; (2) defense and indemnity costs were subject to pro-rata allocation; and (3) vertical exhaustion applied to the duty to defend under certain umbrella policies. Two justices concurred in part and dissented in part. I. Background In Radiator Specialty, the insured (RSC) was named in hundreds of underlying suits arising from individual plaintiffs’ alleged exposure to benzene contained in its products. Between 1971 and 2012, RSC was insured under primary, umbrella and excess liability policies issued by various insurers. In 2013, RSC sued the insurers in North Carolina state court, seeking coverage for approximately $45 million in defense and indemnity costs incurred for the underlying claims. In 2016, the trial court decided motions for summary judgment on a number of coverage issues. Following a bench trial in 2018, the trial court entered final judgment, which required the insurers to reimburse $1.8 million of RSC’s past costs. The rulings were appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which issued a decision in 2020. In 2021, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted RSC’s and certain insurers’ petitions for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Fannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' Basements

    December 17, 2015 —
    Parents, rejoice. Your offspring may finally be moving out of the family basement. A new report (PDF) from Fannie Mae, the U.S. government-backed mortgage company, suggests that the millennial generation is getting a move on. "According to the ACS [Census Bureau’s American Community Survey], the number of homeowners aged 25-34 fell by more than 250,000 in each year between 2007 and 2012, but has declined by less than 100,000 annually since then," Fannie Mae said. "In fact, the decline between 2013 and 2014 was statistically insignificant, the first indication of stability in the number of young homeowners since the onset of the Great Recession." So while the number of homeowners in that age range is still on the decline, the trend looks poised for a reversal, and Fannie Mae said it won't take much to see positive growth in millennial homeownership in the near future. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Julie Verhage, Bloomberg

    Resolve to Say “No” This Year

    January 26, 2016 —
    We hear all of the time how to “get to ‘yes'” and how doing so can lead to more business and of course more business leads to more profits. Purely logical, right? Without construction owners with work for general contractors to perform and general contractors hiring subcontractors to perform that work, construction grinds to a halt and clients and friends of mine in the construction industry don’t make money. For this to happen, “yes” has to happen more often than not. So, why the title of this post? Chalk it up to spending much if not all of my time as a construction attorney either anticipating or dealing with the Murphy’s Law ruled nature of the construction world or to the “Monday morning quarterback” nature of my profession, but I see numerous instances where not taking the job or signing the bad contract would have led to a better outcome than performing the work. What do I mean by this? I mean that as a construction company (particularly one that is lower down the “payment chain” and therefore less in control of the flow of money), you need to carefully evaluate not only the contract presented, but whether you get a good feeling about the party with whom you are contracting. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Hurricane Claim Cannot Survive Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    May 15, 2023 —
    The court upheld the insurer's denial of coverage for hurricane damage caused by storm surge. Heritage Motorcoach Resort & Marina Condominium Association, Inc v. Axis Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58931 (S.D. Ala. April 4, 2023). Heritage operated a resort with a marina, dock and clubhouse. Hurricane Sally caused damage to the property. Heritage submitted a claim to its insurer, Axis. Axis investigated the claim. One investigator reported that the marina structures sustained damage caused by storm tide forces, wave action and debris impact. He opined that the marina structures did not sustain wind damage. When deposed, he testified that there was a combination of vessels and wave action causing damage to the marina. A second investigator found that the storm drove boats and other debris into the marina area causing much of the damage. 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

    Despite Increased Presence in Construction, Women Lack Size-Appropriate PPE

    September 26, 2022 —
    Fit. Functionality. Comfort. These are absolute musts for any employee wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) for work. Yet for many women in the workplace, finding PPE that fits well remains a challenge. In 2021, women comprised 11% of construction workers, 7.9% of truck drivers and 29% of manufacturing employees (Bureau of Labor Statistics), and their numbers in these fields continue to increase. Unfortunately, their options for proper-fitting PPE are not growing. "It's difficult to find PPE that fits women, because there is limited availability of these products, or suppliers do not offer them at all," says Brandy Bossle, owner and principal consultant at Triangle Safety Consulting LLC. "We really need suppliers to go out of their way to offer PPE that's cut for both men and women." Private fleet driver and Women in Trucking Image Team member Carol Nixon agrees, saying, "You can find men's hats, gloves, jackets and safety vests everywhere, but not with a female fit." Women can be shaped differently from head to toe—their faces, shoulders, waists, fingers and toes are often narrower, and they often have shorter torsos, among other differences. In order for PPE to fit many women comfortably and properly, these proportions need to be taken into account. In fact, OSHA states on its website that PPE used by women should be based on female body measurement data and that employers should offer PPE in sizes suitable for women. Reprinted courtesy of Robin Marth, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Ms. Marth may be contacted at media@jjkeller.com

    State And Local Bid Protests: Sunk Costs and the Meaning of a “Win”

    July 11, 2022 —
    Across the United States, state and local agencies often use competitive bidding to award contracts for various types of work. Generally speaking, a bid protest is when an unsuccessful bidder challenges the award by the state or local agency to another competitive bidder. Procurement at this level is entirely distinct from federal procurement. The details of any bid protest will be specific to the locality. However, a question that very often comes up when a state or local agency uses competitive bidding: what happens when I lose the bid? More specifically, if I should not have lost because my bid was the lowest or best value, can I make the state or local agency award the bid to me? Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Amy Anderson, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Ms. Anderson may be contacted at aanderson@joneswalker.com