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


    Developer Transition – Washington DC Condominiums

    Congress to be Discussing Housing

    Texas Supreme Court Declines to Waive Sovereign Immunity in Premises Defect Case

    Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad

    Indiana Appellate Court Allows Third-Party Spoliation Claim to Proceed

    Viewpoint: A New Approach to Job Site Safety Reaps Benefits

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Abandons "Integrated Systems Analysis" for Determining Property Damage

    Discussion of History of Construction Defect Litigation in California

    Housing Starts in U.S. Climb to an Almost Eight-Year High

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured In Northern California Super Lawyers 2021!

    Purse Tycoon Aims at Ultra-Rich With $85 Million Home

    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

    Construction Insurance Costs for New York Schools is Going Up

    Using the Prevention Doctrine

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    Neither Designated Work Exclusion nor Pre-Existing Damage Exclusion Defeat Duty to Defend

    Personal Thoughts on Construction Mediation

    Proposed Florida Construction Defect Act

    Number of Occurrences Is On the Agenda at This Year's ICLC Seminar

    How BIM Helps Make Buildings Safer

    Important Environmental Insurance Ruling Issued In Protracted Insurance-Coverage Dispute

    WATCH: 2023 Construction Economic Update and Forecast

    Construction Safety Technologies – Videos

    Investigators Explain Focus on Pre-Collapse Cracking in Florida Bridge

    Fourth Circuit Rejects Application of Wrap-Up Exclusion to Additional Insured

    Insurance Tips for Contractors

    New Jersey Rules that Forensic Lab Analysts Can’t be Forced to Testify

    Berger: FIGG Is Slow To Hand Over All Bridge Collapse Data

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

    Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill: Overview of Key Provisions

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Remand of Bad Faith Claim Evidences Split Among Florida District Courts

    Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

    Health Care Construction Requires Compassion, Attention to Detail and Flexibility

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    Court Sharpens The “Sword” And Strengthens The “Shield” Of Contractors’ License Law

    Privileged Communications With a Testifying Client/Expert

    Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    Insured's Expert Qualified, Judgment for Coverage Affirmed

    Insurer Must Defend Insured Against Construction Defect Claims

    New Jersey Senate Advances Bad Faith Legislation

    Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial

    Lewis Brisbois Moves to Top 15 in Law360 2022 Diversity Snapshot

    What is a Personal Injury?

    Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency

    Almost Nothing Is Impossible

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar

    Fifth Circuit Decision on Number of Occurrences Underscores Need to Carefully Tailor Your Insurance Program
    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

    How Technology Reduces the Risk of Façade Defects

    March 20, 2023 —
    The shell of the building is an onlooker’s first impression and crafts the architectural aesthetic, but it also plays a crucial role in enabling energy efficiency and protecting against the elements. Because façades are in direct contact with the elements, issues with water intrusion are the most common problem and the costliest to remedy, with anywhere from 30% to 70% of lawsuits related to water intrusion, half of it through the façade. Additionally, improperly installed façades pose significant safety risks because unsecured parts can fall and hit people below. All these factors contribute to the façade being one of the most complex and costly aspects of a building to construct and inspect, making up 205 of the total project cost. Installing these systems correctly the first time is the most effective way to mitigate these threats. Teams should utilize data-informed technology that ensures plan adherence, reducing risk and avoiding errors during installation. The Challenges of Façade Installation Façade installation and subsequent inspection are inherently challenging, particularly for high-rise buildings. When performing post-installation verification manually, inspectors must review every element, joint by joint, window by window, stone by stone and brick by brick, which can take months to complete. Inspections of the entire building system are limited by this process, as inspectors can only access one portion of the building façade at a time and often have to inspect from indoors, on balconies or at the ground level, which doesn’t paint a complete picture. As a result, teams typically only perform spot checks on the façade and are rarely inspected to their fullest. This leaves many installation errors and defects, which serve as ticking bombs for future water intrusion or safety hazards. Reprinted courtesy of Ori Aphek, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Happy New Year from CDJ

    January 04, 2018 —
    The CDJ staff has compiled a “Top 10” list of the articles published in 2017. These articles were the “most read” by our audience last year. These most read stories range from contemplating construction industry conundrums to a surprising increase of new home construction nationwide. As we kick off our first publication of 2018 we are excited to continue to bring you interesting and relevant content. We hope that you will continue to rely on CDJ for an insightful weekly summary of what is happening in the construction defect industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    ASCE's Architectural Engineering Institute Announces Winners of 2021 AEI Professional Project Award

    April 19, 2021 —
    RESTON, Va. – The American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE) Architectural Engineering Institute (AEI) is pleased to announce the 100 Mount Street project by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and Billie Jean King Main Library, also by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill as Best Overall Projects winners for AEI's Professional Project Awards. The 100 Mount Street project won the award Best Overall Project Over $100 Million, while the Billie Jean King Main Library won the award for Best Overall Project Under $100 Million. Traditionally, AEI announces project winners during its in-person annual Awards Banquet; however, ASCE held the banquet virtually this year to follow CDC guidelines which suggest avoiding large gatherings. The AEI Professional Project Award recognizes outstanding achievements in design and construction by honoring the art and science of an integrated approach to architectural engineering. The program focuses on high performance buildings including structural, mechanical, electrical and lighting systems as well as construction management and architectural engineering integration. Projects are evaluated on originality and innovative character, integration and collaboration, sustainability, energy efficiency and economics, effective use of technology and constructability and site logistics. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. About ASCE's Architectural Engineering Institute Established in 1998, AEI is the premier organization for architectural engineering, promoting an integrated, multi-disciplinary approach to planning, design, construction and operation of buildings, by encouraging innovation, collaboration and excellence in practice, education and research of architectural engineering. For more information, visit www.asce.org/aei. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of American Society of Civil Engineers

    When to Withhold Retention Payments on Private or Public Projects

    August 29, 2018 —
    To ensure that construction contractors and subcontractors receive timely progress and retention payments, the California Legislature enacted statutes that impose deadlines and penalties on owners and direct (general) contractors who delay payments. (Cal. Civ. Code, §§ 8800, 8802, 8812, 8814; Pub. Contract Code, §§ 7107, 10262.5; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7108.5.) However, there is an exception to these deadlines and penalties on both private and public projects. The exception allows an owner or direct contractor to withhold payment1 when there is a good faith dispute between an owner and a direct contractor or between a direct contractor and a subcontractor. (Civ. Code, §§ 8800, subd. (b), 8802, subd. (b), 8812, subd. (c), 8814, subd. (c); Pub. Contract Code, §§ 7107, subds. (c), (e), 10262.5, subd. (a); Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7108.5, subd. (a).) But the term “good faith dispute” has been a source of confusion where direct contractors owe subcontractors retention payments, but want to withhold the payment because of a dispute.2 California appellate courts were split, with one court finding that any type of bona fide dispute justified withholding, and another finding that only disputes related to the payment itself justified withholding. (Compare Martin Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1401 [any bona fide dispute could justify withholding] with East West Bank v. Rio School Dist. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 742 [disputes related to the payment itself may justify withholding].) In May 2018, the California Supreme Court clarified that for a direct contractor to withhold a retention payment on a private project, the good faith dispute must somehow relate to the payment itself. (United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1082, 1097-1098.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas Karkazis, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Karkazis may be contacted at nkarkazis@grsm.com

    Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

    February 06, 2019 —
    I have stated to clients on many occasions that paper is a lawyer’s best friend. Because of a recent case from the Virginia Supreme Court, I should modify that to the correct paper is a lawyer’s best friend. In Commonwealth v. AMEC Civil, LLC, AMEC sued the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) seeking more than $21 million in damages. The Mecklenburg County Circuit Court granted AMEC almost all of its damages and found that AMEC’s notice of intent to make a claim was proper under the Virginia Code even if it was not in the proper form. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    It’s Time for a Net Zero Building Boom

    May 02, 2022 —
    Is it too much to ask Americans to take their foot off the gas and reset their thermostats? On March 18, the International Energy Agency released a 10-point plan for reducing oil use, arguing that advanced economies can readily cut demand by 2.7 million barrels a day in the next four months, an amount large enough to avoid major supply shortages as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine roils the energy market. The plan’s major prescriptions will look familiar to anyone who recalls the OPEC shocks of the 1970s: reducing speed limits to improve gas mileage, boosting transit use, and discouraging non-essential car and air travel. But its exclusive focus on the transportation sector overlooks the substantial efficiency gains to be had from the built environment: Buildings consume about 40% of the energy used in the U.S. every year. Yet reducing energy use in buildings has been stigmatized by fossil-fuel interests as a lifestyle deprivation — an argument that’s been internalized by pundits and politicians even as geopolitical turmoil drive spikes in oil prices and climate change impacts upend millions of lives. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James S. Russell, Bloomberg

    U.S. Construction Value Flat at End of Summer

    December 04, 2013 —
    The Census Bureau has released it numbers for the value of construction put in place for September and October, and while further numbers are forthcoming, this current report shows little change. The value of construction dropped a miniscule 0.3% in September, however, residential construction actually showed a slight increase. October then showed a 0.8% increase, but then private residential construction dropped by 0.5%. In all, however, by the end of October, private residential spending was up 17.8% over the prior year. As with other sectors of public spending, public residential spending dropped 3.4% from the prior year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Clarifies Pennsylvania’s Strict Liability Standard

    January 14, 2015 —
    In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 6474923 (Pa. Nov. 19, 2014), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania discussed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s products liability law and, overturning prior precedent, clarified the law. In particular, the Court, overturned Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978), clarified the role of the judge and the jury in products liability cases and settled the question of whether Pennsylvania would adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability §§ 1, et. seq. (Third Restatement) as the standard for deciding Pennsylvania products liability cases. The Tincher decision makes clear that Pennsylvania will continue to apply § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Second Restatement) in products liability cases and that jurors, not the court, will decide the question of whether a product is in a defective condition. Plaintiffs may prove that a product is defective using either the consumer expectations test or the risk-utility test. Background The Tincher case arose out a fire that occurred at the home of Terrance and Judith Tincher on June 20, 2007. The Tinchers alleged that the fire started when a lightning strike near their home caused a small puncture in corrugated steel tubing (CSST) carrying natural gas to a fireplace located in their home. The defendant, Omega Flex, Inc. (Omega Flex) manufactured the CSST. Reprinted courtesy of William Doerler, White and Willams LLP and Edward Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of