BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnesses
    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


    Colorado Senate Bill 15-177: This Year’s Attempt at Reasonable Construction Defect Reform

    Hurricane Claim Cannot Survive Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben, and Justyn Verzillo Secure Dismissal of All Claims in a Premises Liability Case

    Home Prices in U.S. Rose 0.3% in August From July, FHFA Says

    Meet BWB&O’s 2025 Best Lawyers in America!

    Pandemic Magnifies Financial Risk in Construction: What Executives Can Do to Speed up Customer Payments

    Wall Street Journal Analyzes the Housing Market Direction

    New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 4: Coverage for Supply Chain Related Losses

    Your Contract is a Hodgepodge of Conflicting Proposals

    Denial of Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens Does Not Automatically Create Basis for Certiorari Relief

    Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

    White House Hopefuls Make Pitches to Construction Unions

    Earth Movement Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Construction Warranties and the Statute of Repose – Southern States Chemical, Inc v. Tampa Tank & Welding Inc.

    Quick Note: Do Your Homework When it Comes to Selecting Your Arbitrator

    Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

    The Biggest Change to the Mechanics Lien Law Since 1963

    What to do When the Worst Happens: Responding to a Cybersecurity Breach

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

    Hunton Insurance Practice, Attorneys Recognized in 2024 Edition of The Legal 500 United States

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Left Out a Key Ingredient!”

    OSHA Announces Expansion of “Severe Violator Enforcement Program”

    Construction Up in Northern Ohio

    Congratulations 2019 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Smart Home Products go Mainstream as Consumer Demand Increases

    Traub Lieberman Partners Dana Rice and Jason Taylor Obtain Summary Judgment For Insurance Carrier Client in Missouri Federal Court Coverage Action

    Is it the End of the Lease-Leaseback Shootouts? Maybe.

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

    Misread of Other Insurance Clause Becomes Costly for Insurer

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    Carwash Prosecutors Seek $1.6 Billion From Brazil Builders

    Read Carefully. The Insurance Coverage You Thought You Were Getting May Not Be The Coverage You Got

    Tall Mass Timber Buildings Now Possible Under 2021 IBC Code Changes

    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

    The Double-Breasted Dilemma

    Extreme Flooding Overwhelms New York Roadways, Killing 1 Person

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    Architects Group Lowers U.S. Construction Forecast

    Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit

    Top 10 Hurricane Preparedness Practices for Construction Sites

    Study Finds Mansion Tax Reduced Sales in New York and New Jersey

    Construction Defect Claim not Barred by Prior Arbitration

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA

    Damages to Property That is Not the Insured's Work Product Are Covered

    PATH Station Designed by Architect Known for Beautiful Structures, Defects, and Cost Overruns

    Don’t Kick the Claim Until the End of the Project: Timely Give Notice and Preserve Your Claims on Construction Projects

    Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action
    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

    Don’t Put All Your Eggs in the Silent-Cyber Basket

    August 07, 2022 —
    The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently gave another reminder why cyber insurance should be part of any comprehensive insurance portfolio. In Construction Financial Administration Services, LLC v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 19-0020 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2022), the court rejected a policyholder’s attempt to find coverage under its professional liability insurance for a social engineering incident that defrauded over $1 million. Construction Financial Administrative Services, which goes by CFAS, disburses funds to contractors. One of its clients, SWF Constructors, was hacked, and a bad actor posing as the client asked CFAS to distribute $600,000 to a sham third party. John Follmer, an executive at CFAS and the only person authorized to approve distribution of funds, approved it. The next day, the bad actor, again posing as the client, asked Follmer to transfer an additional $700,000. Follmer approved that distribution too. Reprinted courtesy of William P. Sowers, Jr., Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Companies Score Win at Supreme Court

    December 26, 2022 —
    In 2011, the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) contracted with Seattle Tunnel Partners, a joint venture of Dragados USA and Tutor Perini (“STP”) to construct a tunnel (“SR 99 Tunnel”) to replace the dilapidated Alaska Way Viaduct. STP obtained a builder’s “all-risk” insurance policy (“Policy”) from Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC and several other insurers (collectively, the “Insurers”) which insured against damage to both the project and the tunnel boring machine popularly known as Big Bertha (“Bertha”). Bertha began excavating in July 2013 but broke down a few months later when the machine stopped working. Work did not resume on the project until December 2015. WSDOT and STP tendered insurance claims for the losses associated with the delays and breakdown of Bertha but the Insurers denied coverage. Thereafter, WSDOT and STP sued.  The Insurers moved the trial court for partial summary judgment to resolve some, but not all, of the coverage disputes. In a unanimous decision, the Washington State Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and Court of Appeals, and held that insurance companies do not have to reimburse WSDOT and STP for costs accrued during a two-year Project delay, under certain provisions of the insurance policies. Reprinted courtesy of Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC and Ryan Sternoff, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Mr. Sternoff may be contacted at ryan.sternoff@acslawyers.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

    January 08, 2024 —
    Congratulations to Newport Partners Tyler Offenhauser and Jonathan Cothran, and Associate Anisha Kohli, who recently prevailed on behalf of BWB&O’s client before the Orange County Superior Court on a highly contested Motion to Quash Service based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely file and serve a DOE Amendment, naming our client. BWB&O’s client was the owner of a building where Plaintiff, a licensed electrician, was electrocuted while performing an upgrade to the building’s electrical infrastructure. Plaintiff’s original lawsuit named only the building’s tenant, who was also represented by BWB&O. BWB&O was successful earlier this year on a Motion for Summary Judgment under the Privette Doctrine and won judgment on behalf of the client/tenant. While that MSJ was pending, Plaintiff surreptitiously added the building’s owner to the suit with a DOE Amendment, after several months earlier learning the owner and then tenant were entities operated by the same individual. However, Plaintiff never informed counsel or any other party of the filing. Moreover, after the MSJ was granted, Plaintiff then waited several more months to serve the building’s owner. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/06/22

    April 11, 2022 —
    A growing proptech startup aims to pre-emptively identify needed home repairs, 3D-printed homes could become a workable solution to the housing shortage, and more.
    • Concerns about a housing-market crash are growing as the Fed begins to hike interest rates, leaving industry experts to speculate on what’s next for the U.S. housing bubble. (William Edwards, Insider)
    • Real-estate sales in Manhattan topped $7 billion in the first quarter of 2022, with the average price of apartments jumping 19% over the previous year. (Robert Frank, CNBC)
    • Proptech startup DwellWell claims to have produced the first “check engine light” that can pre-emptively diagnose needed home repairs. (T.P. Yeatts, The Real Deal)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater

    May 27, 2019 —
    On Tuesday, April 23, 2019, in a development of interest to practically anyone who operates a plant or business, EPA published its Interpretive Statement in the Federal Register. (See 84 FR 16810 (April 23, 2019).) After considering the thousands of comments it received in response to a February 20, 2018, Federal Register notice, EPA has concluded that “the Clean Water Act (CWA) is best read as excluding all releases of pollutants from a point source to groundwater from a point source from NPDES program coverage, regardless of a hydrological connection between the groundwater and jurisdictional surface water.” Acknowledging that its past public statements have not been especially consistent or unambiguous on this important matter, EPA states that this interpretation “is the best, if not the only reading of the CWA, is more consistent with Congress’ intent than other interpretations of the Act, and best addresses the question of NPDES permit program applicability for pollutant releases to groundwater within the authority of the CWA.” Indeed, the absence of “a dedicated statement on the best reading of the CWA has generated confusion in the courts, and uncertainly for EPA regional offices and states implementing the NPDES program, regulated entities, and the public.” The recent and contrary interpretations of this issue by the Ninth Circuit (Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, 886 F.3d 737) and the Fourth Circuit (Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP, 887 F.3d 637) will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which will now have the benefit of the agency’s official position. In addition, EPA discloses that it will be soliciting additional public “input” on how it can best provide the regulated community with “further clarity and regulatory certainly”; these comments will be due within 45 days (June 7, 2019). 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

    Do Engineers Owe a Duty to Third Parties?

    June 10, 2015 —
    A Texas Court of Appeals, in USA Walnut Creek, DST v. Terracon Consultants, Inc., recently ruled that an engineer owed a duty to the buyer of an apartment complex, even though the engineer had no contractual relationship with the buyer. This is an expansion of the duty professionals owe on construction projects and could signal a change in the law. In the case, Walnut Creek purchased a three year old apartment complex. A few years after taking possession, Walnut Creek noticed problems with the apartments, including cracking foundations, walls, breaking windows, and out of square door frames. Walnut Creek sued the developer and general contractor, alleging construction defects. The developer claimed that the engineer, Terracon, was at fault and Walnut Creek added Terracon to the lawsuit, asserting that Terracon was negligent in performing engineering services during construction. Terracon asked the court to dismiss the claim, arguing that it did not owe a duty to Walnut Creek. Walnut Creek in turn argued that engineers do owe a duty to subsequent owners. The trial court dismissed the case against the engineer and Walnut Creek appealed. The appellate court reversed the trial court, finding that the engineer did owe a duty to subsequent purchasers. The court seemed persuaded by the allegations that the engineer actually created the construction defects which were the basis for the litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    How Helsinki Airport Uses BIM to Create the Best Customer Experience

    September 07, 2017 —
    Helsinki Airport is arguably one of the best in the world. Thanks to its perfect location between Asia and Europe, it’s becoming an ever-more-popular hub. I interviewed Finavia’s Design Manager, Kari Ristolainen, about the airport’s development program and how building information modeling (BIM) is essential to its success. On my way to Finavia’s project office, I walked by the newly opened South Pier. The construction company’s blue site huts were still there, but inside, the terminal seemed fully operational. The South Pier is the latest addition in the development program that started in 2014. Of the 21 airports that Finavia has in Finland, Helsinki is the crown jewel. The €900 million expansion and renovation program will eventually double the airport’s capacity. In 2014, Finavia chose Lemminkäinen as the project management contractor for the terminal expansion. Destia is the partner in the alliance for extending the airport apron. PES Architects continues as the principal designer, while other designers include Sweco Structures, Granlund, and SITO. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

    U.S. Government Bans Use of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements between Nursing Homes and Residents, Effective November 28, 2016

    November 17, 2016 —
    On September 28, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, issued a new rule that bans federal funding to any nursing home that requires its residents to enter mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements upon admission. The rule prevents nursing homes from forcing residents to submit any disputes concerning care, payment for services, etc., to mandatory binding arbitration rather than to a court. Mandatory arbitration agreements are frequently used in many types of industries and have been for decades. However, recent eff orts by several consumer advocate groups have sought to curtail the use of mandatory arbitration clauses in industries where the individuals who executed such agreements have little to no bargaining power. According to these groups, nursing home residents are potentially more vulnerable than most to being unwittingly bound by such agreements because of the nature of the admissions process. The new rule is set to take effect on November 28, 2016, and will only apply to agreements entered into after that date. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey M. Daitz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Joseph Vento, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Daitz may be contacted at jdaitz@pecklaw.com Mr. Vento may be contacted at jvento@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of