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


    North Miami Beach Rejects as Incomplete 2nd Engineering Inspection Report From Evacuated Condo

    Surety’s Several Liability Under Bonds

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

    Request for Stay Denied in Dispute Over Coverage for Volcano Damage

    National Infrastructure Leaders Visit Dallas' Able Pump Station to Tout Benefits of Water Infrastructure Investment

    Recovering Time and Costs from Hurricane Helene: Force Majeure Solutions for Contractors

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Reject Collapse Coverage Denied

    Happenings in and around the 2016 West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Mitsubishi Estate to Rebuild Apartments After Defects Found

    How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6 Billion Embarrassment

    Five Actions Construction and Energy Risk Managers Can Take to Avoid the Catastrophic Consequences of a Cyber Attack

    Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

    SunTrust Will Pay $968 Million to Resolve Mortgage Probes

    Colorado Court Holds No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claim

    The Business of Engineering: An Interview with Matthew Loos

    Delay In Noticing Insurer of Loss is Not Prejudicial

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Rules General Contractors Can Contractually Subordinate Mechanics Lien Rights

    Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered

    Meet BWBO’s 2024 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    Engineers Propose 'River' Alternative to Border Wall

    Reasonable Expectations – Pennsylvania’s Case by Case Approach to the Sutton Rule

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected

    Lightstone Committing $2 Billion to Hotel Projects

    Famed NYC Bridge’s Armor Is Focus of Suit Against French Company

    Related’s $1 Billion Los Angeles Project Opens After 15-Year Wait

    California’s Wildfire Dilemma: Put Houses or Forests First?

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

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2021

    Not a Waiver for All: Maryland Declines to Apply Subrogation Waiver to Subcontractors

    DRCOG’s Findings on the Impact of Construction Defect Litigation Have Been Released (And the Results Should Not Surprise You)

    New American Home Construction Nears Completion Despite Obstacles

    Minnesota Senate Office Building Called Unconstitutional

    Opoplan Introduces Generative AI Tools for Home-Building

    Hunton Offers Amicus Support in First Circuit Review of “Surface Water” Under Massachusetts Law

    Depreciating Labor Costs May be Factor in Actual Cash Value

    Giving Insurance Carrier Prompt Notice of Claim to Avoid “Untimely Notice” Defense

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

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

    Hundreds of Snakes Discovered in Santa Ana Home

    5 Ways Equipment Financing is Empowering Small Construction Businesses

    ABC Announces Disaster Relief Efforts and Resources Following Hurricane Milton

    Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020: Yet Another Reason to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

    What Sustainable Building Materials Will the Construction Industry Rely on in 2020?

    So, You Have a Judgment Against a California Contractor or Subcontractor. What Next? How Can I Enforce Payment?

    Scotiabank Is Cautious on Canada Housing as RBC, BMO Seek Action

    Insured's Remand of Bad Faith Action Granted

    Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)

    Wilke Fleury Welcomes New Civil Litigation Attorney

    Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects
    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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood Obtains Summary Judgment Determining Insurer Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify

    February 27, 2023 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood obtained summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff determining that it had no duty to defend or indemnify an insured in a personal injury action, in a case brought in the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiff, an insurance provider (“the Insurer”), issued a General Commercial Policy (the “Policy”) to the Defendant, a commercial property owner (the “Property Owner”). In the underlying action, a former employee (the “Employee”) of a concrete vendor sued the Property Owner, and others, in New York Supreme Court, Queens County, for an injury that occurred on the street in front of the Property Owner’s premises during the course of repairs of sewer pipes that serviced the Property Owner’s premises. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Harwood may be contacted at jharwood@tlsslaw.com

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    May 26, 2011 —

    A three-judge panel issued a per curium ruling on May 23 in Fairview Heights Condo. v. Investors (N.J. Super., 2011), a case which the members of a condominium board argued: “that the judge erred by: 1) dismissing plaintiff’s claims against RLI based upon the statute of repose; 2) dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Luppinos based upon a lack of expert opinion; 3) barring the testimony of Gonzalez; and 4) barring the May 23, 1989 job site report.” The court rejected all claims from the condominium board.

    The court found that the building must be unsafe for the statute of repose to apply. They noted, “the judge made no findings on whether the water seepage, or the property damage caused by such seepage, in any way rendered the building, or any of the units, unsafe.” Further, “without a specific finding on the question of whether the defects had rendered the building ‘unsafe,’ defendants were not entitled to the benefit of the ten-year statute of repose.“

    On the second point, the court also upheld the lower court’s findings regarding the management company:

    “The report submitted by Berman establishes that the EIFS product was defective in its design and would therefore have failed from the outset. The defects in that product were, according to Berman, not prone to repair or other mitigation. Therefore, even if defendants did not appropriately inspect or repair the EIFS, their failure to do so would have had no impact on the long-term performance of the EIFS exterior cladding. As plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on these questions, the judge properly granted summary judgment to the Luppinos on plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.”

    On the final two points, the judges noted “plaintiff maintains that the judge committed reversible error when he excluded the Gonzalez certification and the 1989 job site report prepared by Raymond Brzuchalski.” They saw “no abuse of discretion related to the exclusion of the Gonzalez certification, and reject plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary.” Of the job site report, they found, “no abuse of discretion in the judge's finding that the Brzuchalski 1989 job site report did not satisfy the requirements of N.J.R.E.803(c)(6).”

    Read the court’s decision

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

    Delaware Supreme Court Won’t Halt Building

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Delaware Supreme Court has rejected arguments made by Dewey Beach homeowners over the construction of a new building. The Supreme Court agreed with the Chancery Court which had dismissed the complaint as it was filed more than 60 days after exception to the zoning rules had been voted on. A builder had been granted leave to build higher than thirty-five feet in exchange for public space, public restrooms, and other amenities for the public. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    March 14, 2018 —
    Back in 2015, the Virginia General Assembly amended the mechanic’s lien statute (Va. Code 43-3) here in Virginia to preclude any contractual provision that diminishes a subcontractor or supplier’s “lien rights in a contract in advance of furnishing any labor, services, or materials.” However, this amendment was only applicable to subcontractors and suppliers. For political and other reasons, general contractors in Virginia were left out of this change. This omission by the legislature put Virginia general contractors in the position of potentially being forced by project owners to waive their mechanic’s lien rights without the ability to run that risk downstream to their subcontractors and suppliers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    California Supreme Court McMillin Ruling

    January 24, 2018 —
    Reaction to the recent California Supreme Court ruling in McMillin Albany LLC v. The Superior Court of Kern County has been both swift and diverse, with many notable California law firms weighing in on the potential impact this landmark ruling may have on the Construction Industry and construction defect litigation. In our ongoing desire to serve as a meaningful and comprehensive provider of news and information for Construction and Claims Professionals, we have included a selected number of the submissions we have received regarding this very important judicial ruling. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    FIFA May Reduce World Cup Stadiums in Russia on Economic Concern

    July 16, 2014 —
    FIFA may reduce the number of stadiums used to host the 2018 World Cup in Russia on concern that their economic viability after the monthlong event ends. FIFA President Sepp Blatter said a day after Germany’s 1-0 win over Argentina in the final that a delegation from soccer’s governing body will meet Russian tournament organizers in September to discuss plans for the next edition. Blatter gave a mark of 9.25 out of 10 to an “exceptional” Brazil World Cup, which cost $11 billion to stage. The tournament is a difficult challenge for organizers, Blatter said, illustrated by construction delays at almost all of the 12 arenas used for the 64 games in Brazil. “The World Cup has taken such a dimension that the organization is hard work for the organizing country and also for FIFA,” Blatter told reporters at Rio de Janeiro’s Maracana stadium, where Germany claimed a fourth title and became the first European country to win the tournament in South America. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tariq Panja, Bloomberg
    Mr. Panja may be contacted at tpanja@bloomberg.net

    Second Circuit Denies Petitions for Review of EPA’s Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures

    August 20, 2018 —
    On July 23, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided the case of Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition v. EPA. Environmental conservation groups and industry associations petitioned for review of a final rule promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), establishing requirements for cooling water intake structures at existing facilities. Denying the petitions for review, the Court of Appeals summarized:
    “Because we conclude, among other things, that both the Rule and the biological opinion are based on reasonable interpretations of the applicable statutes and sufficiently supported by the factual record, and because the EPA 3 gave adequate notice of its rulemaking, we DENY the petitions for review.”
    This is a significant CWA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) decision involving the operation of major industrial facilities requiring the daily use of large amounts of water taken from adjacent bodies of water. 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

    Why Federal and State Agencies are Considering Converting from a “Gallons Consumed” to a “Road Usage” Tax – And What are the Risks to the Consumer?

    August 26, 2015 —
    “‘We’re going to have to find another way to finance the upkeep of the roads,’ Gov. Jerry Brown said earlier this year in rolling out his 2015 budget. Governor Brown gave no specifics, but last fall he signed a law that set up a commission to study a ‘road usage charge’ with a call to ‘establish a pilot program by Jan. 1, 2017…'” – San Jose Mercury News, January 27, 2015 This Change, It’s a Coming (Maybe) Many states and the federal government are seriously considering converting from a “gallons consumed” tax levy to a “miles driven” program for determining gasoline tax. There are several compelling reasons for such a change. First, our roads are falling apart while revenue from current highway taxes fall woefully short of our current and projected needs. In the meantime, the number of miles driven by all-electric cars that pay no gas tax, is increasing rapidly; and by hybrids that pay substantially reduced tax; and worse for the taxing authorities, by increasingly efficient gas-powered cars. All of this means rapidly dropping gas tax revenues. Seeing this trend, local, state and the federal governments are making a major push to convert from a consumption based tax to a “miles driven” tax. This a good thing for those of us that believe increased investment in our transportation infrastructure is of high national concern. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com