BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    Disaster-Relief Bill Stalls in Senate

    Chicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing Requirements

    2018 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Insurer Not Responsible for Insured's Assignment of Policy Benefits

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    New Jersey Supreme Court Upholds $400 Million Award for Superstorm Sandy Damages

    We've Surveyed Video Conferencing Models to See Who Fits the CCPA Bill: Here's What We Found

    Insurers May Not Be Required to Defend Contractors In a Florida §558 Proceeding

    Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

    Solar Energy Isn’t Always Green

    DOE Abruptly Cancels $13B Cleanup Award to BWXT-Fluor Team

    Insurer Could Not Rely on Extrinsic Evidence to Circumvent Its Duty to Defend

    Newmeyer & Dillion Gets Top-Tier Practice Area Rankings on U.S. News – Best Lawyers List

    Heat Exposure Safety and Risk Factors

    Back Posting with Thoughts on Lien Waivers

    Federal Court Sets High Bar for Pleading Products Liability Cases in New Jersey

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

    Your Work Exclusion Applies to Damage to Tradesman's Property, Not Damage to Other Property

    Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment

    The Contractor’s Contingency: What Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know and Be Wary Of

    Managing Infrastructure Projects with Infrakit – Interview with Teemu Kivimäki

    No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing

    New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

    Do Construction Contracts and Fraud Mix After All?

    Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas

    Policy Language Matters: New Jersey Court Bars Cleanup Coverage Under Broad Policy Terms

    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    California Supreme Court Declines to Create Exception to Privette Doctrine for “Known Hazards”

    Governmental Action Exclusion Bars Claim for Damage to Insured's Building

    California Trial Court Clarifies Application of SB800 Roofing Standards and Expert’s Opinions

    Avoiding 'E-trouble' in Construction Litigation

    Know What’s Under Ground and Make Smarter Planning Decisions

    Quick Note: October 1, 2023 Changes to Florida’s Construction Statutes

    Brooklyn’s Hipster Economy Challenges Manhattan Supremacy

    Product Manufacturers Beware: You May Be Subject to Jurisdiction in Massachusetts

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Unexpectedly Fell in January

    Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    The Unthinkable Has Happened. How Should Contractors Respond?

    Create a Culture of Safety to Improve Labor Recruitment Efforts

    California Court Confirms Broad Coverage Under “Ongoing Operations” Endorsements

    Previously Owned U.S. Home Sales Rise to Eight-Month High

    High Court Could Alter Point-Source Discharge Definition in Taking Clean-Water Case

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

    Roof Mounted Solar Panels: Lower Your Risk of Fire

    Traub Lieberman Partner Rina Clemens Selected as a 2023 Florida Super Lawyers® Rising Star

    Judge Halts Sale of Brazilian Plywood

    Water Bond Would Authorize $7.5 Billion for California Water Supply Infrastructure Projects

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold
    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

    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

    April 20, 2011 —

    After reviewing the decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al., the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that a tort claim for property damage arising from construction defects may exist even when the homeowner and the builder are in a contractual relationship.

    When the case was initially filed, the plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that one, the claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations and two, no special relationship (such as one between a doctor and patient) existed. The court agreed with the defendants. However, the Court of Appeals while affirming the trial court’s decision on breach of contract reversed the decision on negligence. The Court of Appeals stated that an administrative or statute rule could establish a standard of care independent from the contract.

    The Oregon Supreme Court gave an example of cases where a tort claim could exist when a contract is present: “If an individual and a contractor enter into a contract to build a house, which provides that the contractor will install only copper pipe, but the contractor installs PVC pipe instead (assuming both kinds of pipe comply with the building code and the use of either would be consistent with the standard of care expected of contractors), that failure would be a breach of contract only. […] If the failure to install the copper pipe caused a reduction in the value of the house, the plaintiff would be able to recover that amount in an action for breach of contract. […] On the other hand, if the contractor installed the PVC pipe in a defective manner and those pipes therefore leaked, causing property damage to the house, the homeowner would have claims in both contract and tort. […] In those circumstances, the obligation to install copper instead of PVC pipe is purely contractual; the manner of installing the pipe, however, implicates both contract and tort because of the foreseeable risk of property damage that can result from improperly installed pipes.”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Fourth Circuit Issues New Ruling on Point Sources Under the CWA

    October 02, 2018 —
    The Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes citizen suits to enforce the provisions of the law which requires a permit to discharge a pollutant from a point source into navigable waters. Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, held that discharges into groundwater, not surface water, could also trigger the regulatory authority of the CWA if there was a hydrological connection between the groundwater and the navigable, surface, waters. In its a closely-watched case, Sierra Club v. Virginia Electric & Power Company (“VEPCO”), which also involved discharges into groundwater, the Fourth Circuit was bound by this this new and controversial precedent (a Supreme Court review is very likely), but the plaintiffs in the VEPCO case could not establish that the landfill and the settling ponds used by VEPCO were “point sources”—another important element that must be established. 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

    PSA: Pay If Paid Ban Goes into Effect on January 1, 2023

    December 05, 2022 —
    I have written a couple of times here at Musings regarding the new pay-if-paid legislation passed by the General Assembly last session. While the statute has some inconsistencies and a working group has made some recommendations, the legislation as passed will go into effect on January 1, 2023, without any changes (at least until next session). As always, such action by our legislature here in Virginia will create work for construction attorneys assisting their clients to amend contracts to meet the new rules. Essentially (and with minor inconsistencies between public and private contracts), the bill requires that any construction contract entered into after January 1, 2023 have the following provisions:
    • On public projects: A payment clause that obligates a contractor on a construction contract to be liable for the entire amount owed to any subcontractor with which it contracts. Such contractor shall not be liable for amounts otherwise reducible due to the subcontractor’s noncompliance with the terms of the contract. However, in the event that the contractor withholds all or a part of the amount promised to the subcontractor under the contract, the contractor shall notify the subcontractor, in writing, of his intention to withhold all or a part of the subcontractor’s payment with the reason for nonpayment.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    What ‘The Curse’ Gets Wrong About Passive House Architecture

    April 02, 2024 —
    In the fifth episode of Showtime’s The Curse, two potential buyers are touring a boutique house in Española, a soon-to-be gentrified Santa Fe neighborhood when one of them makes a remark about the temperature. “Sorry, can I get a water? It’s just really hot in here,” he says, airing out his sweat-stained shirt. The quirky home’s architect-slash-developer, played by Emma Stone, says, “Sure!” and without skipping a beat, continues to explain the virtues of her passive house design: The home functions like a thermos, with no need for air conditioning — unless any air escapes the house. Then it takes five to seven hours for the room to recover. Owning a passive house sounds like a nightmare, right? If you’re buying a one-of-a-kind, mirror-clad spec house from Stone and co-star Nathan Fielder, it may well be. On The Curse, the two play a do-gooder couple attempting to make an HGTV series (with Benny Safdie) about turning regular houses into carbon-neutral passive homes. Odd things happen to Stone and Fielder over the show’s first season: trouble with the laws of gravity, the trials of a failing marriage and a literal curse from a small child. But the weirdest might be the show’s portrayal of passive house design, an energy-efficient design standard that has been around since the 1970s. Passive building, which has its origins in Europe, relies on advanced construction methods to seal a structure in an airtight envelope, thereby reducing energy consumption for heating and cooling by as much as 75%. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Teresa Xie, Bloomberg

    Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”

    August 30, 2017 —
    A recent federal court decision rendered in July of 2017 highlights the importance of worker classification in the transportation industry and the potential insurance implications. In Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Kailey, 1 the court determined that an “employee exclusion” in a motor carrier’s automobile liability insurance policy did not exclude coverage for liability resulting from the bodily injury of an independent contractor operating the motor carrier’s tractor-trailer. In April of 2014, a team of two drivers hired by the motor carrier, Kailey Trucking Line (KTL), were involved in a collision while operating KTL’s truck. The passenger in the truck, who was not operating the vehicle at the time, was killed in the accident. Subsequently, the spouse of the decedent filed suit against KTL as well as the driver of the truck. KTL sought coverage for the suit under its automobile liability insurance policy, issued by Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group, Incorporated (Spirit). However, Spirit took the position that it had no duty to defend or indemnify KTL, and ultimately filed a declaratory judgment action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The policy issued to KTL provided coverage for damages due to bodily injury or property damage caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered auto. However, the policy excluded from coverage any bodily injury to an employee or fellow employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of employment of the insured. Accordingly, to the extent that the decedent qualified as an “employee” of KTL, Spirit had no duty to indemnify KTL in the litigation. Reprinted courtesy of H. Scott Williams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Brendan C. Colt, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Holt may be contacted at bch@sdvlaw.com Mr. Williams may be contacted at hsw@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Consequential Damages Can Be Recovered Against Insurer In Breach Of Contract

    July 22, 2019 —
    In a favorable case for insureds, the Fifth District Court of Appeal maintained that “when an insurer breaches an insurance contract, the insured is entitled to recover more than the pecuniary loss involved in the balance of the payments due under the policy in consequential damages, provided the damages were in contemplation of the parties at the inception of the [insurance] contract.” Manor House, LLC v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1403b (Fla. 5thDCA 2019) (internal citations and quotation omitted). Thus, consequential damages can be recovered against an insurer in a breach of contract action (e.g., breach of the insurance policy) if the damages can be proven and were in contemplation of the parties at the inception of the insurance contract. In Manor House, the trial court entered summary judgment against the insured holding the insured could not seek lost rental income in its breach of contract action against Citizens Property Insurance because the property insurance policy did not provide coverage for lost rent. However, the Fifth District reversed this ruling because the trial court denied the insured the opportunity to prove whether the parties contemplated that the insured, an apartment complex owner, would suffer lost rental income (consequential damages) if the insurer breached its contractual duties. 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

    Michigan Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade, Improving from "D+" Grade in 2018

    May 08, 2023 —
    LANSING, MI. — The Michigan Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released the 2023 Report Card for Michigan's Infrastructure today, with 14 categories of infrastructure receiving an overall grade of 'C-', an improvement over the 'D+' grade issued in the state's 2018 report card. That means Michigan's infrastructure systems are improving but are still in average condition and require attention. Michigan's grade is on par with the national average of 'C-' given in the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. Civil engineers graded Michigan's aviation (C), bridges (D+), dams (C-), drinking water (D+), energy (D), inland waterways (C), public parks (C), rail (C), roads (D), schools (C-), solid waste (C+), stormwater (D), transit (C-), and wastewater (C). The report also included a chapter on the state's broadband infrastructure, which did not receive a grade due to insufficient available data. Michigan policymakers have driven progress in the last five years to improve infrastructure assets by implementing short-term funding solutions to address decades of deferred maintenance, including surface transportation funding through the Rebuilding Michigan plan and improved water infrastructure systems through the MI Clean Water Plan. The state will also benefit from recent federal infrastructure investments included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). However, Michigan generally lacks sufficient long-term funding mechanisms to ensure all infrastructure sectors reach and sustain a state of good repair. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City

    July 05, 2021 —
    In a previous post, we described how the New York City Climate Mobilization Act, 2019 (the CMA, or Local Laws 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 147 enacted in 2019) was passed with the goal of reducing New York City’s carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and by 80 percent by 2050 (as against a 2005 baseline as provided for in item 3 of Local Law 97). It is the most ambitious building emissions law to be enacted by any city in the world. The CMA impacts “Covered Buildings” (described below) and, besides contemplating the retrofitting of Covered Buildings to achieve energy efficiency and establishing a monitoring program for Covered Buildings, the CMA contemplates compliance by means of the purchase of carbon offset credits or renewable energy. (Note the new NYC Accelerator program, launched in 2012 by the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, provides guidance regarding energy-efficient upgrades to properties and emission reductions.) Pursuant to the CMA:
    • Beginning in 2024, Covered Buildings will have to meet the first emission targets, which are calculated by multiplying the gross floor area of each Covered Building by the occupancy classification as set forth in Local Law 97; and
    • In 2025, owners of Covered Buildings will need to establish compliance by submitting a report establishing such compliance (prepared by a certified design professional) to the newly created Office of Building Energy and Emissions Performance.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Caroline A. Harcourt, Pillsbury
    Ms. Harcourt may be contacted at caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com