BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut consulting engineers
    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


    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

    ASCE Statement on EPA Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/17/24) – Travel & Tourism Reach All-Time High, President Biden Emphasizes Housing in SOTU Address, and State Transportation Projects Under Scrutiny

    Mind Over Matter: Court Finds Expert Opinion Based on NFPA 921 Reliable Despite Absence of Physical Testing

    Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling

    Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse

    You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. But When it Comes to the CalOSHA Appeals Board, They Can Say it Any Way They Please

    California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

    New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation

    Do You Have an Innovation Strategy?

    New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?

    Just Because You Record a Mechanic’s Lien Doesn’t Mean You Get Notice of Foreclosure

    Tenth Circuit Finds Appraisal Can Decide Causation of Loss Under Colorado Law

    Boston Water Main Break Floods Trench and Kills Two Workers

    Injury to Employees Endorsement Eliminates Coverage for Insured Employer

    Facebook Posts “Not Relevant” Rules Florida Appeals Court

    Colorado Introduces Construction Defect Bill for Commuter Communities

    Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch

    Scaffolding Purchase Suggests No New Building for Board of Equalization

    Forensic Team Finds Fault with Concrete Slabs in Oroville Dam Failure

    Avoid Drowning in Data: Keep Afloat with ESI in Construction Litigation

    The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

    Court Calls Lease-Leaseback Project What it is: A Design-Bid-Build Project

    White and Williams Recognized by BTI Consulting Group for Client Service

    It Was a Wild Week for Just About Everyone. Ok, Make that Everyone.

    South Carolina’s New Insurance Data Security Act: Pebbles Before a Landslide?

    California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now

    Congratulations to Woodland Hills Partner Patrick Au and Senior Associate Ava Vahdat on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!

    Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices

    Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply

    Court Affirms Duty to Defend Additional Insured Contractor

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

    Pandemic-Related Construction Materials Pricing Poses Challenges in Construction Lawsuits

    The Regulations on the Trump Administration's Chopping Block

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    Freight Train Carrying Hot Asphalt, Molten Sulfur Plunges Into Yellowstone River as Bridge Fails

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    Jersey City, New Jersey, to Get 95-Story Condo Tower

    SkenarioLabs Uses AI for Property Benchmarking

    Concrete Worker Wins Lawsuit and Settles with Other Defendant

    County Officials Refute Resident’s Statement that Defect Repairs Improper

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    Tishman Construction Admits Cheating Trade Center Clients

    New York’s Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act Imposes Increased Disclosure Requirements On Defendants at the Beginning of Lawsuits

    Former Zurich Executive to Head Willis North America Construction Insurance Group

    Stadium Intended for the 2010 World Cup Still Not Ready

    Determination That Title Insurer Did Not Act in Bad Faith Vacated and Remanded

    Did the Building Boom Lead to a Boom in Construction Defects?

    Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage
    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. Leveraging 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

    'Regluing' Oregon State's Showcase for Mass Timber

    September 17, 2018 —
    The tally of how many defective cross-laminated timber panels need replacement on a $79-million college of forestry building under construction at Oregon State University is almost complete, nearly six months after two layers of a seven-layer CLT floor panel, 30 ft x 4 ft, came unglued and crashed 14 ft from the third to the second floor of the three-story building. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

    The 411 on the New 415 Location of the Golden State Warriors

    June 10, 2015 —
    You can feel the buzz here in the Bay Area as the Golden State Warriors enter Game 4 of the NBA Playoffs following a 35 point upset over the Houston Rockets on Saturday, and a chance tonight to sweep the series and head to the NBA Finals for the first time since 1975. Formerly the Philadelphia Warriors from 1946 to 1962, and later the San Francisco Warriors from 1962 to 1971, the Golden State Warriors have played in Oakland’s currently named Oracle Arena since 1966 (except for one year when they played in San Jose while the Oracle Arena was being remodeled). Starting next year, however, construction will begin on the Warriors’ new stadium in the Mission Bay area of San Francisco with completion scheduled for the 2018-2019 season. Although details are just emerging – and even the conceptual plans have changed after some said that the initial design looked like a toilet – here’s the 411 we know on the new 415 location of the Warriors:
    • The cost of the new arena is estimated to be $1 billion.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Electrical Subcontractor Sues over Termination

    November 13, 2013 —
    Millennium Plus, Inc. has sued the contractor for the Efrain A. Duran Water Treatment Plant Facility and Rio Grande City for failing to pay money due to them and terminating the contract. According to the lawsuit, Millennium is claiming that they are owed $161,781 for their work on the water treatment facility. According to the city, the project’s contractor was “very unsatisfied with Millennium’s work.” Although the city disclaims any involvement, Millennium claims it was a “joint enterprise.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

    November 05, 2014 —
    According to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, "[I]n Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20737 (5th Cir. October 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior ruling and held that the contractual liability exclusion did not preclude an insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for an award resulting from the insured’s defective construction." The case involved the Crownovers who were awarded damages for "Arrow's breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract." However, Arrow then filed for bankruptcy. Mid-Continent, Arrow's insurer, denied Crownovers' demand for recovery, stating that "the contractual liability exclusion applied because the arbitrator’s award to the Crownovers was based only on Arrow’s breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction agreement." The court agreed with Mid-Continent. Subsequently, the fifth court of appeals "reversed the district court’s ruling and awarded summary judgment in favor of the Crownovers." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Arbitration Denied: Third Appellate District Holds Arbitration Clause Procedurally and Substantively Unconscionable

    February 15, 2021 —
    In Cabatit v Sunnova Energy Corporation, the Third Appellate District held that an arbitration clause in a solar power lease agreement was unenforceable because it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. In Cabatit, Mr. and Ms. Cabitat entered into a solar power lease agreement (the “Agreement”) with Sunnova Energy Corporation (“Sunnova”). Ms. Cabitat, who signed the agreement, speaks English but does not understand complicated or technical terms. The salesperson scrolled through the agreement language and Ms. Cabatit initialed where the salesperson indicated, even though she did not understand most of what he was saying. The salesperson did not explain anything about the arbitration clause nor did he provide Ms. Cabatit with a copy of the Agreement. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Georgia Court Rules that Separate Settlements Are Not the End of the Matter

    October 14, 2013 —
    The Georgia Court of Appeals recently took up the question of how parties in a construction defect settlement relate to one another in terms of apportioning the settlement. Scott Murphy, writing on the Barnes & Thornburg blog clarifies the issues. The underlying construction defect case involved a newly-constructed hotel with mold and mildew problems. The owners sued the contractor (for negligent construction) and the architect (for negligent design). Separately, the owners settled with the contractor for $2.3 million and the architect for $100,000. Subsequently, the contractor sued the architect, attempting to recover part of the settlement the contractors had made with the owners. At trial, the architect prevailed, obtaining a summary judgment that under Georgia law, “joint-tortfeasors can no longer assert contribution or non-contractual indemnity claims.” This was reversed by the Court of Appeals, determining that the two were not joint tortfeasors. Mr. Murphy notes that “the court rejected the parties’ attempt to disavow joint and several liability in their respective settlement agreements.” The court ruled that the contractor could proceed with their claims against the argument. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders

    March 09, 2020 —
    The Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., 2019 IL 124565 (2019), announced the standard for triggering general liability coverage for malicious prosecution claims under Illinois law. In its decision, the court construed what appears to be a policy ambiguity against the policyholder in spite of the longstanding rule of contra proferentem, limiting coverage to policies in place at the time of the wrongful prosecution, and not the policies in effect when the final element of the tort of malicious prosecution occurred (i.e. the exoneration of the plaintiff). The net result of the court’s ruling for policyholders susceptible to such claims is that coverage for jury verdicts for malicious prosecution – awarded in today’s dollars – is limited to the coverage procured at the time of the wrongful prosecution, which may (as in this case) be decades old. Such a scenario can have costly consequences for policyholders given that the limits procured decades ago are often inadequate due to the ever-increasing awards by juries as well as inflation. Moreover, it may be difficult to locate the legacy policies and the insurers that issued such policies may no longer be solvent or even exist. A copy of the decision can be found here. The Sanders case arose out of the wrongful conviction of Rodell Sanders in 1994 by the City of Chicago Heights (the “City”). Mr. Sanders sought recompense for, among other things, malicious prosecution through a federal civil rights action against the City. In September 2016, Mr. Sanders obtained a consent judgment for $15 Million; however, at the time of the wrongful conviction, seventeen years earlier, the City’s only applicable insurance policy provided just $3 million in coverage. The City contributed another $2 million towards the judgment and, in exchange for Mr. Sanders’s agreement not to seek the $10 million balance from the City, assigned its rights under the policies for the 2012 to 2014 period. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    September 01, 2011 —

    The Mississippi Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Harry Baker Smith Architects II, PLLC v. Sea Breeze I, LLC. Sea Breeze contracted with Harry Baker Smith Architects II, PLLC (HBSA) to design a condominium complex, which would be built by Roy Anderson Corporation. All parties agreed to arbitration.

    Subsequently, Sea Breeze alleged defects and sought arbitration against the architectural firm and started a separate arbitration proceeding against the contractor. The special arbitrator appointed by the American Arbitrators Association determined that it would be proper to consolidate the two actions “since they arose from a common question of fact or law.” HBSA filed in chancery court seeking injunctive relief and a reversal of the decision. Sea Breeze and Roy Anderson filed a motion to compel the consolidated arbitration.

    The court noted that the special arbitrator “established that the contract between Sea Breeze and Roy Anderson expressly allowed for consolidation of the two cases.” Further, the arbitrator “concluded that HBSA expressly agreed to consolidation by written consent through its 2008 letter, through which it insisted upon Roy Anderson’s involvement ‘in any mediation and/or arbitration.’”

    The court concluded that the chancery court “did not have the power to fulfill HBSA’s request.” The court affirmed the chancery court’s judgment.

    Read the court’s decision…

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