BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut stucco 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


    The Drought Is Sinking California

    Repairs Could Destroy Evidence in Construction Defect Suit

    Housing Starts Surge 23% in Comeback for Canadian Builders

    Expert's Opinions On Causation Leads Way To Summary Judgment For Insurer

    Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

    California Attempts to Tackle Housing Affordability Crisis

    New Home Permits Surge in Wisconsin

    Hail Damage Requires Replacement of Even Undamaged Siding

    Will Claims By Contractors on Big Design-Build Projects Ever End?

    Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien

    New York Team’s Win Limits Scope of Property Owners’ Duties to Workers for Hazards Inherent in Their Work

    More Broad-Based Expansion for Construction Industry Expected in 2015

    Happy New Year from CDJ

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    Before Celebrating the Market Rebound, Builders Need to Read the Fine Print: New Changes in Construction Law Coming Out of the Recession

    NY Construction Safety Firm Falsely Certified Workers, Says Manhattan DA

    Structural Problems May Cause Year-Long Delay Opening New Orleans School

    Endorsements Preclude Coverage for Alleged Faulty Workmanship

    Construction Problems May Delay Bay Bridge

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

    Just When You Thought the Green Building Risk Discussion Was Over. . .

    PulteGroup Fires Exec Accused of Defamation By Founder’s Heir

    Former Trump Atlantic City Casino Set for February Implosion

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

    Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences as Affirmative Defense

    Colorado Supreme Court Grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes

    Housing Woes Worse in L.A. Than New York, San Francisco

    Update: Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    Crossrail Audit Blames Busted Budget and Schedule on Mismanagement

    Late Progress Payments on Local Public Works Projects Are Not a Statutory Breach of Contract

    An Expert’s Qualifications are Important

    Cliffhanger: $451M Upgrade for Treacherous Stretch of Highway 1 in British Columbia

    Evaluating Construction Trends From 2023 and Forecasting For 2024

    Deadline Nears for “Green Performance Bond” Implementation

    COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus

    Read the Property Insurance Policy to be Sure You are Complying with Post Loss Obligations

    Florida High-Rise for Sale, Construction Defects Possibly Included

    What is a “Force Majeure” Clause? Do I Need one in my Contract? Three Options For Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers to Consider

    HB24-1014: A Warning Bell for Colorado Businesses Amid Potential Consumer Protection Changes

    Impairing Your Insurer’s Subrogation Rights

    The Regulations on the Trump Administration's Chopping Block

    Index Demonstrates Increase in Builders’ Sentiment

    The Woodland Hills Office Secures a Total Defense Award on Behalf of their High-End Custom Home Builder Client!

    Mark Van Wonterghem To Serve as Senior Forensic Consultant in the Sacramento Offices of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.

    Safe Commercial Asbestos-Removal Practices

    New York Condominium Association Files Construction Defect Suit

    Texas Shortens Cut-Off Date for Suits Against Homebuilders Who Provide a 6-Year Written Warranty

    Terminating Notice of Commencement Without Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Cybersecurity on Your Project: Why Not Follow National Security Strategy?

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

    Prison Time and Restitution for Construction Fraud

    February 14, 2013 —
    Federal prosecutors have obtained prison sentences and fines for the two leaders of a construction kickback scheme. Others are awaiting sentencing. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that John Paderta the former president of Krahl Construction has been sentenced to five years in prison and must pay $10 million in restitution. His executive vice president, Doug Harner will be spending five years in prison and has been ordered to pay $9.6 million in restitution. Paderta and Harner overbilled two clients on renovation projects, giving kickbacks to employees at the client companies. Two employees of these client companies have pled guilty. A further five employees of the three companies have admitted that they were involved in the fraud. They are yet to be sentenced. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Haight’s Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Southern California Rising Stars

    June 14, 2021 —
    Congratulations to partner Kristian Moriarty who was selected to the Super Lawyers 2021 Southern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Risk Protection: Force Majeure Agreements Take on Renewed Relevance

    November 30, 2020 —
    Force majeure clauses have been standard in contracts dating back hundreds of years in the United States—and even longer in Europe. “Force majeure,” which is French for “greater force,” removes liability for unforeseen events that prevent parties from fulfilling contractual obligations. In a year defined by the COVID-19 pandemic, these clauses have gone from boilerplate basics to something worthy of further examination and attention in order to minimize risk for all parties involved in a construction project. Prior to COVID-19, drafters might have considered a localized or regional event that would lead to invoking a force majeure clause. It is doubtful, however, that anybody envisioned the impact on such a world-wide scale. UNDERSTANDING THE AGREEMENTS Force majeure clauses cover unforeseen events, a broad term that encompasses both acts of God and human-caused incidents. These range from natural disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes to acts of terrorism, strikes, political strife, government actions, war and other difficult- or impossible-to-predict disruptions. When such an event occurs, the force majeure clause attempts to remove, or at least reduce, uncertainty as to the rights and liabilities of the parties to the agreement. Reprinted courtesy of Michael E. Carson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Carson may be contacted at michael.carson@nationwide.com

    Nicholas A. Thede Joins Ball Janik LLP

    October 02, 2015 —
    As of September 1st, Nicholas A. Thede, an insurance recovery litigator, joined Ball Janik LLP’s Insurance Recovery, Construction Defect, and Litigation practices. According to the release, Mr. Thede “has advised clients in a wide variety of insurance disputes, including claims arising under general liability, professional liability, directors and officers, employee dishonesty, homeowners, and automotive insurance policies. Thede has successfully represented clients in trials, arbitrations, and appeals, and has obtained numerous favorable settlements for his clients. He has handled insurance disputes throughout Oregon and Washington, along with several other jurisdictions. Mr. Thede has substantial experience litigating claims for insurance ‘bad faith’ and recovery of attorney fees in a variety of settings.” Ball Janik LLP is headquartered in Portland, Oregon. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas EIFS Case May Have Future Implications for Construction Defects

    October 02, 2013 —
    Lennar Homes addressed a problem with EIFS in homes built in Texas in the 1990s by replacing every roof they had built. Some of those homes had problems with leaks, rotting, or termites, but other roofs hadn’t suffered any problems. Lennar’s insurers initially refused coverage. Lennar managed to settle with all but one, Markel American Insurance. Their dispute formed the case Lennar Corp. v. Markel American Insurance Co. This was first tried before a jury and eventually appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. Brian S. Martin of Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons LLP discusses this case at Insurance Journal. Markel’s claim was that under the policy language, Lennar could not make voluntary payments without getting Markel’s consent, which they did not. But the Texas Supreme Court disagreed, determining that Lennar took, as Mr. Martin notes, “a reasonable approach to a serious problem.” Markel also made the claim that the whole amount of the damages was not covered by the policy, as they did not view the policy as covering the cost of determining the extent of the damage. The Court disagreed, noting that “under no reasonable construction of the phrase can the cost of finding EIFS property damage in order to repair it not to be considered ‘because of the damage.’” Mr. Martin concludes by calling the Texas Supreme Court decision “a frontal assault on several critical provisions of liability policies that will assuredly lead to further litigation.” He also notes that the decision “may indicate a shift in the Court’s approach in insurance cases to a more result-oriented jurisprudence.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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

    Use of Dispute Review Boards in the Construction Process

    December 27, 2021 —
    Dispute Review Boards: Overview Problems, disagreements and claims arise in most large and complex construction projects regardless of the project delivery method. These disputes can and do delay and significantly increase the cost of the project. Dispute Review Boards, also known as Dispute Resolution Board, Dispute Board, Dispute Avoidance Board or DRB, are often found in large construction projects to assist the parties to minimize, resolve or avoid disputes and mitigate adverse impacts to projects. To date, over $270 billion worth of construction projects have used the dispute review board process to avoid numerous disputes and achieve significant savings.[1] Unlike mediation and arbitration, a DRB is convened at the very beginning of the project and conducts regular meetings and visits at the project site throughout, allowing the DRB to discuss, observe and monitor construction, progress and potential disputes. At these meetings, DRB members become familiar with many of the facts and acquaint themselves with the job site personnel. If a dispute is submitted to them, the panelists have a great deal of knowledge about the circumstances of the problem to aid them in reaching their recommendations or conclusions. DRBs also encourage open and honest communications among or between the parties during the project, which in turn, encourages avoidance or resolution of disputes before they become formal claims. In short, the DRP process involves real-time discussion of the dispute with highly qualified people who know the particular project from day one and can provide recommendations on how to resolve disputes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLP
    Ms. Biser may be contacted at sbiser@foxrothschild.com

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    October 21, 2015 —
    The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's order granting summary judgment to the insurer who denied a defense for a construction defect claim. Steel Supply & Eng'g Co. v. Illinois Nat'. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14363 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2015). Steel Supply contracted with the Carmel Redevelopment Corporation to fabricate and erect steel for a construction project in Carmel, Indiana. After the steel was erected, an iron worker at the site discovered defects in the steel. Subsequent investigations revealed additional defects. Carmel filed suit against Steel Supply for breach of contract. The complaint alleged that a critical connection that Steel Supply designed was inadequate to handle the forces coming onto it. Carmel claimed that the immediate need to remediate the steel damaged Carmel directly, and that other contractors sought damages from Carmel for harm caused by the delays. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com