BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital 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


    Reminder: Pay if Paid Not All Encompassing (but Could it be?)

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, Texas

    The Results are in, CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte is Elected to OCBA’s 2024 Board of Directors!

    Dispute between City and Construction Company Over Unsightly Arches

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Fair Share Act Does Not Preempt Common Law When Apportioning Liability

    BHA’s Next MCLE Seminar in San Diego on July 25th

    Duty To Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part

    Precast Standards' Work Under Way as Brittle Fracture Warnings Aired

    If You Don’t Like the PPP Now, Wait a Few Minutes…Major Changes to PPP Loan Program as Congress Passes Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act

    New York Preserves Subrogation Rights

    Blackstone Said to Sell Boston Buildings for $2.1 Billion

    Workers Hurt in Casino Floor Collapse

    CSLB’s Military Application Assistance Program

    North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties

    Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

    Texas LGI Homes Goes After First-Time Homeowners

    Defenses Raised Three-Years Too Late Estop Insurer’s Coverage Denial

    Lenders Facing Soaring Costs Shutting Out U.S. Homebuyers

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    Revamp to Nationwide Permits Impacting Oil and Gas Pipeline, Utility and Telecom Line Work

    Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Little Changed in January

    Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

    Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse

    The Families First Coronavirus Response Act: What Every Employer Should Know

    California Joins the Majority of States in Modifying Its Survival Action Statute To Now Permit Recovery for Pain, Suffering And Disfigurement

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    Risk Management and Contracting after Hurricane Irma: Suggestions to Avoid a Second Disaster

    Subrogation 101 (and Why Should I Care?)

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    Contractor Pleads Guilty to Disadvantaged-Business Fraud

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Builder’s Risk Indeed”

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    2013 May Be Bay Area’s Best Year for Commercial Building

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Preserves Possibility of Coverage

    Additional Insured Obligations and the Underlying Lawsuit

    New Jersey’s Governor Puts Construction Firms on Formal Notice of His Focus on Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

    Save a Legal Fee: Prevent Costly Lawsuits With Claim Limitation Clauses

    California’s Housing Costs Endanger Growth, Analyst Says

    Jury Could Have Found That Scissor Lift Manufacturer Should Have Included “Better” Safety Features

    California Court of Appeal Holds a Tenant Owes No Duty to Protect a Social Guest From a Defective Sidewalk Leading to a Condominium Unit

    New OSHA Regulations on Confined Spaces in Construction

    What ‘The Curse’ Gets Wrong About Passive House Architecture

    KB Homes Sues Condo Buyers over Alleged Cybersquatting and Hacking

    Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly

    Montreal Bridge Builders Sue Canada Over New Restrictions

    Unions Win Prevailing Wage Challenge Brought By Charter Cities: Next Stop The Supreme Court?

    There’s an Unusual Thing Happening in the Housing Market

    Turmoil Slows Rebuilding of Puerto Rico's Power Grid

    Jury's Verdict for Loss Caused by Collapse Overturned
    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

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

    May 18, 2011 —

    In an unpublished decision, the California Fourth Appellate District Court has reversed the judgment of Judge Linda B. Quinn of the Superior Court of San Diego. In the case Inland California, Inc. v. G.A. Abell, Inland, a general contractor had subcontracted with Apache Construction and Precision Electric Company (G.A. Abell).

    Apache alleged that extra demolition and drywall work was needed due to Precision’s electrical work. Inland tendered a defense of Apache’s claims. However, Precision did not provide any defense. Inland withheld payment from Precision.

    At trial, Inland “conceded Precision earned the $98,000 in progress payments Inland withheld.” They were obligated to additionally pay Precision’s costs and attorney fees.

    The Fourth Appellate District court has overturned this and remanded the case back to the lower court. The judges determined that Precision was obligated to defend itself against the claims raised by Apache and therefore vacated the judgment against Inland.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    December 04, 2013 —
    Repairs to the Medina County District Library in Lodi, Ohio should be complete next spring. The library’s lawsuit over the roof is just beginning. The library building was a $3 million project in 2005, but the building had to close in 2011 when it was determined that the roof was not structurally sound. The lawsuit names six defendants, including the contractor, the framing subcontractor, and the engineering firm. The library seeking damages, legal expenses, and attorney fees. The cost of replacing the roof was $1.5 million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fed. Judge Blocks Release of Records on FIU Bridge Collapse, Citing NTSB Investigation

    October 23, 2018 —
    Oct. 05 --A federal judge Friday blocked the release of documents that could shed light on why a busy road outside Miami was not shut down before a brand-new bridge developing severe cracks collapsed and killed six people. Judge William Stafford said the National Transportation Safety Board , the federal agency investigating the Florida International University bridge disaster, "was exercising its valid federal regulatory authority" in keeping the documents confidential from the media. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment

    November 19, 2021 —
    On September 14, 2021, Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian secured summary judgment on behalf of a City which operated a park containing a natural bathing spring in Sarasota County, Florida. The underlying loss occurred when the Plaintiff went to the park, entered the spring without incident, swam for more than an hour, then exited the spring and was returning to the area where she had stored her belongings when she slipped and fell on mud and grass, sustaining an open angulated fracture of her right tibia and fibula. The Plaintiff was rushed to the hospital where she underwent open reduction, internal fixation surgery on her right leg which consisted of implantation of a metal rod into the medullary cavity of her tibia that was secured by two proximal and two distal interlocking screws. She was in the hospital for four days. Upon discharge, the Plaintiff was placed in a walking boot and confined to a wheelchair for several months. The Plaintiff incurred nearly $100,000 in medical expenses. The Plaintiff filed a premises liability action against the City claiming it failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. The Plaintiff also alleged that the City failed to warn her that the area where she had stored her belongings had become saturated and slippery proximately causing her fall and resulting injuries. After the close of discovery, Mr. Guldalian filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the City arguing the wet grass and mud upon which the Plaintiff fell and injured herself was a byproduct of patrons going in and out of the water and walking to and from the area where they stored their belongings, was open and obvious, and did not constitute a dangerous condition as a matter of law. Citing to case law from the Florida Supreme Court which held that it is common knowledge that walks adjacent to, leading to, or surrounding a bathing area generally have water constantly thrown upon them and are in a slippery condition, as well as deposition testimony from the Plaintiff confirming she had been swimming at the spring for the past eighteen plus years and was “very familiar” with the park, the spring, and the area where she normally stored her belongings, Mr. Guldalian argued that some injury-causing conditions, like wet grass and mud surrounding a swimming area, are simply so open and so obvious that they cannot be held, as a matter of law, to give rise to liability as dangerous conditions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bradley T. Guldalian, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Guldalian may be contacted at bguldalian@tlsslaw.com

    Schools Remain Top Priority in Carolinas as Cleanup From Storms Continues

    November 06, 2018 —
    A month after Hurricane Florence dumped more than 30 inches of rain on the Carolinas, Hurricane Michael delivered additional flash flooding, power outages and wind damage. While the construction-related impact of Hurricane Michael is still being assessed (stay tuned for more on that front in the coming weeks), Moody’s Analytics estimates total property damage from Florence at $17 billion to $22 billion, factoring in losses from homes, roads, crops, livestock, coal ash ponds and more. While it’s difficult to pinpoint which counties were hit the hardest, the majority of the damage was in the eastern coastal areas of North Carolina. According to Rob Beale, a vice president in W.M. Jordan’s Wilmington, North Carolina, office, Carteret and Onslow counties took the brunt of the storm, while Columbus and Brunswick counties experienced the biggest flooding impact. Reprinted courtesy of Joanna Masterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CISA Guidance 3.1: Not Much Change for Construction

    June 22, 2020 —
    This week, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued Version 3.1 of its Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce. For the most part, CISA’s Guidance 3.1 did not change from Version 3.0 as it relates to construction. However, CISA added a few construction-related services to “Essential Critical Infrastructure”:
    • “Workers who support the construction and maintenance of electric vehicle charging stations.”
    • “Engineers performing or supporting safety inspections.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Laura Bourgeois LoBue, Pillsbury
    Ms. LoBue may be contacted at laura.lobue@pillsburylaw.com

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    May 10, 2012 —

    The US District Court for Maryland has granted a summary judgment in the case Konover Construction Corp. v. ATC Associates to Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and denied a request for dismissal from ACT. Konover (KBE) was contracted by Wal-Mart to build a Wal-Mart store and a Sam’s Club in Port Covington, Maryland. Superus, Inc. was hired by KBE to build the masonry walls. Superus purchased a policy from Massachusetts Bay Insurance which named KBE as an additional insured. Wal-Mart hired ATC Associates to independently test and inspect the concrete structural steel, and masonry.

    After the building was in use, a large crack appeared which was attributed a latent construction defect. Other cracks were discovered. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there were “voids or foam in the concrete block surrounding the reinforcing steel that should have been filled with grout,” and in some cases, “reinforcing steel was missing or not installed in accordance with the specifications.” KBE paid for the repair and remediation and Wal-Mart assigned all rights and interests against ATC to KBE.

    KBE filed suit against ATC. ATC called for dismissal on the grounds that Wal-Mart had no claims as the problems had been remediated. Wal-Mart then provided KBE with additional agreements to give them enforceable rights against ATC and Superus. KBE filed a fourteen claims against ATC, Superus, and Massachusetts Bay. In the current case, Massachusetts Bay sought summary judgment and ATC sought dismissal of all claims against it.

    Massachusetts Bay claims that they need not indemnify Superus, as “there is no evidence adequate to establish that Superus’ defective work caused any collateral and/or resulting damage that was not subject to an Impaired Property exclusion, and that, in any event, no damage occurred during the policy period.”

    As Wal-Mart is headquarted in Arkansas, certain contracts were under Arkansas law. Under the Arkansas courts, “defective workmanship, standing alone and resulting in damages only to the work product itself, is not an ‘occurrence.’” The court determined that collateral or resultant damage would be covered. The court found that “it is clear under Arkansas law, and the parties appear to agree, that Massachusetts Bay is not obligated to indemnify KBE for any repairs to the masonry walls themselves, including any cracks or gaps in the walls.” The court also found that “there is no evidence adequate to prove that any allegedly resultant property damage was caused by Superus’ faulty construction of the walls.” The court also noted that “if the building code violation and structural integrity problem were ‘property damage,’ insurance coverage would be barred by the Impaired Property Exclusion.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Massachusetts Bay is entitled to summary judgment.

    While the court dismissed the case against Massachusetts Bay, the court declined ATC’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that ACT’s alleged negligence in conducting inspections “created only a risk of economic loss for KBE.” Although hired by Wal-Mart, ATC “transmitted its daily testing and inspection reports of the Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club projects directly to KBE.” The court found that “KBE has made a plausible claim.”

    ATC also claimed that KBE contributed to the negligence due to the negligence of its subcontractor. The court concluded that it was plausible that “ATC will not be able to carry its burden of proving KBE was contributorily negligent.” The court was less sanguine about KBE’s fraud claim, but though it “may not now appear likely to have merit, it is above the ‘plausibility’ line.”

    In conclusion, KBE may not continue its case against Massachusetts Bay. However, the judge allowed the other proceedings to continue.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    History and Gentrification Clash in a Gilded Age Resort

    October 05, 2020 —
    Newport, Rhode Island, is a small New England beachfront town with a permanent population of 26,000 and an amazing collection of historic homes. Billed as “America’s First Resort,” the 350-year-old city on Aquidneck Island hosts more than 3 million tourists every year. They come for the boating, the famous folk and jazz festivals (both canceled this summer), and the architecture. The narrow streets of the Point along the waterfront are lined with hundreds of modest homes from the early 1700s, one of the largest ensembles of colonial architecture in the country. On Historic Hill sits an assortment of grander antebellum, classical and Gothic Revival structures from the latter part of the 18th and early to mid-19th century, many built by Southern plantation owners. Newport also boasts what is probably the most opulent thoroughfare in the country, a several-mile stretch of Bellevue Avenue lined with shade trees and palatial limestone mansions built by Gilded Age robber barons and industrialists. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alex Ulam, Bloomberg