BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expert
    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


    Hake Law Attorneys Join National Law Firm Wilson Elser

    Register and Watch Partner John Toohey Present on the CLM Webinar Series!

    Recent Opinions Clarify Enforceability of Pay-if-Paid Provisions in Construction Contracts

    2024 Update to CEB’s Mechanics Liens Now Available

    Massive Danish Hospital Project Avoids Fire Protection Failures with Imerso Construction AI

    Best Practices After Receiving Notice of a Construction Claim

    You Have Choices (Litigation Versus Mediation)

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (04/18/23) – Clean Energy, Critical Infrastructure and Commercial Concerns

    Pennsylvania Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade

    Between Scylla and Charybids: The Mediation Privilege and Legal Malpractice Claims

    It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

    Angelo Mozilo Speaks: No Regrets at Countrywide

    Sarah P. Long Expands Insurance Coverage Team at Payne & Fears

    How Helsinki Airport Uses BIM to Create the Best Customer Experience

    Experts: Best Bet in $300M Osage Nation Wind Farm Dispute Is Negotiation

    Designers Face Fatal Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Fallout

    Parks and Degradation: The Mess at Yosemite

    My Construction Law Wish List

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    Billion-Dollar Power Lines Finally Inching Ahead to Help US Grids

    The Benefits of Incorporating AI Into the Construction Lifecycle

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

    Construction Law- Where Pragmatism and Law Collide

    Structural Health Check-Ups Needed but Are Too Infrequent

    Municipalities Owe a Duty to Pedestrians Regardless of Whether a Sidewalk Presents an “Open and Obvious” Hazardous Condition. (WA)

    Celebrating Excellence: Lisa Bondy Dunn named by Law Week Colorado as the 2024 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants

    Playing Hot Potato: Indemnity Strikes Again

    Prejudice to Insurer After Late Notice of Hurricane Damage Raises Issue of Fact

    Candlebrook Adds Dormitories With $230 Million Purchase

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    Construction Wall Falls, Hurts Three

    Connecticut Reverses Course for Construction Managers on School Projects

    Governor Murphy Approves Legislation Implementing Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey

    In Real Life the Bad Guy Sometimes Gets Away: Adding Judgment Debtors to a Judgment

    Daniel Ferhat Receives Two Awards for Service to the Legal Community

    Design-build Trends, Challenges and Risk Mitigation

    Assessing Defective Design Liability on Federal Design-Build Projects

    Manhattan Developer Wants Claims Dismissed in Breach of Contract Suit

    Woman Files Suit for Property Damages

    Reversing Itself, Alabama Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect is An Occurrence

    Did You Really Accept That Bid? – How Contractors Can Avoid Post-Acceptance Bid Disputes Over Contract Terms

    Senior Living Facility Makes Construction Defect Claims

    Can I Record a Lis Pendens in Arizona if the Lawsuit is filed Another Jurisdiction?

    How To Lock Disputes Out Of Your Project In Construction

    What are the Potential Damages when a House is a Lemon?

    Manhattan Luxury Condos Sit on Market While Foreign Buyers Wait
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Dispute Resolution Provision in Subcontract that Says Owner, Architect or Engineer’s Decision Is Final

    March 29, 2021 —
    In subcontracts, it is not uncommon to see a provision that says something to the effect: Should any dispute arise between the parties respecting the true construction or interpretation of the Plans, Specifications and/or the Contract Requirements, the decision of the Owner or the Owner’s designated representative as set forth in the General Contract shall be final. This is a provision in a subcontract dealing with dispute resolution, typically when there is a dispute as to whether the subcontractor is performing extra-contractual or base contract work regarding an “interpretation of the Plans, Specifications, and/or the Contract Requirements.” It is not uncommon for there to be a dispute as to whether certain work is within the subcontractor’s scope of work or outside the subcontractor’s scope of work and subject to a change order. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    N.J. Governor Fires Staff at Authority Roiled by Patronage Hires

    August 20, 2019 —
    New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy’s administration fired 30 employees of a state authority that finances local school construction after an independent review found that his former appointee stacked it with friends, family and political contacts who were unqualified for their jobs. All but three of those dismissed Tuesday from the Schools Development Authority had been hired by Lizette Delgado-Polanco, the former chief executive officer who resigned in April amid media scrutiny of her oversight. A review by an outside law firm faulted the agency for “patronage-type hires” that undermined its work. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Elise Young - Bloomberg

    How to Build a Coronavirus Hospital in Ten Days

    April 20, 2020 —
    If the coronavirus pandemic continues to spread in the United States as it has in other countries, drastic expansions of hospital and quarantine facility capacity are likely to be necessary. In the hard-hit Seattle area, several temporary facilities are already under construction, including a 200-bed temporary quarantine and isolation center built on a soccer field. China’s response to the initial outbreak in the city of Wuhan demonstrates how rapidly authorities can add capacity in an emergency. As thousands of citizens became ill with COVID-19, China built two hospitals in Wuhan over the span of just days. Time-lapse videos such as this one show how remarkably quickly the hospitals were built. Construction on the Huoshenshan Hospital (shown in the prior linked video) began on January 23 and finished eight days later. A second hospital, Leishenshan Hospital, began construction on January 25 and finished 12 days later. Square footage information on both hospitals has been inconsistently reported, but Huoshenshan Hospital has a capacity for 1,000 beds, while Leishenshan Hospital has a capacity for 1,600 beds. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Lee, Pillsbury
    Ms. Lee may be contacted at elaine.lee@pillsburylaw.com

    Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods

    July 22, 2019 —
    State of Texas, et al. v. US EPA. The revised regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” continues to generate litigation in the federal courts. On May 28, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the 2015 rulemaking proceedings used by EPA and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to redefine this important component of the Clean Water Act were flawed in that the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) were violated because insufficient notice was provided by these agencies that “adjacent” waters newly subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of these agencies, can be determined on the basis of specific distances, which was a change in the agencies’ thinking, and insufficient notice of this change was provided to the public. In addition, the final rule “also violated the APA by preventing interested parties from commenting on the scientific studies that served as the technical basis” for the rule. However, the court did not vacate the new rule, but remanded the matter to the “appropriate administrative agencies” to give them an opportunity to fix this problem. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma v. US EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. A day later, on May 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma rejected arguments that the new redefinition should be preliminarily enjoined.While this case was filed in 2015, intervening litigation in the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, caused a substantial delay in the disposition of this case. The court, noting that the tests for granting such an injunction against the federal government are fairly exacting, held that the plaintiffs, the State of Oklahoma and a number of industry groups and associations, failed to convince the court that the harm they would suffer if the rules remained effective would be irreparable. Presumably, this case will be going to trial in the near future. 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

    China Bans Tallest Skyscrapers Following Safety Concerns

    July 25, 2021 —
    China is prohibiting construction of the tallest skyscrapers to ensure safety following mounting concerns over the quality of some projects. The outright ban covers buildings that are taller than 500 meters (1,640 feet), the National Development and Reform Commission said in a notice Tuesday. Local authorities will also need to strictly limit building of towers that are more than 250 meters tall. The top economic planner cited quality problems and safety hazards in some developments stemming from loose oversight. A 72-story tower in Shenzhen was closed in May for checks following reports of unexplained wobbling, feeding concern about the stability of one of the technology hub’s tallest buildings. Construction of buildings exceeding 100 meters should strictly match the scale of the city where they will be located, along with its fire rescue capability, the commission said. “It’s primarily for safety,” said Qiao Shitong, an associate law professor at the University of Hong Kong who studies property and urban law. Extremely tall buildings “are more like signature projects for mayors and not necessarily efficient.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Zero-Energy Commercial Buildings Increase as Contractors Focus on Sustainability

    February 10, 2020 —
    Imagine a functional, low energy commercial building that annually consumes only as much power as the building creates with on-site, clean, renewable resources. From coast to coast, there is considerable momentum for zero-energy (ZE) buildings, also known as ZEB’s or net-zero energy buildings (NZEBs). Although still an emerging market, the growth trend for ZEBs is steep. The world’s net-zero energy market for commercial and residential projects is expected to exceed $1.4 trillion by 2035. The number of ZEBs across North America has dramatically increased since 2010 which encompasses about 80 million square feet of commercial building space. ZE has captured the attention of building owners, developers, architects, engineers, contractors, designers, policymakers and others who see its potential to efficiently use clean energy resources to reduce the substantial carbon footprint of buildings. Real Applications of Net Zero From 2012 to 2019, the number of ZE projects has increased ten-fold. According to the “2019 Getting to Zero Project List” released in May 2019 by the New Buildings Institute, a nonprofit organization striving to achieve better energy performance in commercial buildings, the total number of certified, verified and emerging ZE projects grew to 607 in 2019. New projects continue to appear regularly. Today, hundreds of ZE buildings, including commercial buildings of all types (including retail, office, warehouse, hotel, educational and government) are being developed. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey S. Wertman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses. The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.” During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage. The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance. The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty. The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.” The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wave Breaker: How a Living Shoreline Will Protect a Florida Highway and Oyster Bed

    December 23, 2024 —
    A living shoreline being constructed in the Florida Panhandle's Apalachicola Bay is protecting a critical local highway, while fostering marsh areas and oyster habitat that’s seen years of decline. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com