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


    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy

    Biden’s Solar Plans Run Into a Chinese Wall

    Testing Your Nail Knowledge

    Withdrawal Liability? Read your CBA

    Texas Federal District Court Dismisses COVID-19 Claim

    Tech to Help Contractors Avoid Litigation

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling On Certificates Of Merit And “Gist Of Action” May Make It More Difficult For An Architect Or Engineer To Seek An Early Dismissal

    How Philadelphia I-95 Span Destroyed by Fire Reopened in Just 12 Days

    Chicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing Requirements

    Emerging Trends in Shortened Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose

    Northern District of Mississippi Finds That Non-Work Property Damages Are Not Subject to AIA’s Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    Colorado Homes Approved Despite being Too Close Together

    U.S. Tornadoes, Hail Cost Insurers $1 Billion in June

    Engineers Found ‘Hundreds’ of Cracks in California Bridge

    Meet Some Key Players in 2020 Environmental Litigation

    SEC Climate Change Disclosure Letter Foreshadows Anticipated Regulatory Changes

    Contractor Sentenced to Seven Years for Embezzling $3 Million

    Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

    Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

    California Supreme Court Clarifies Deadline to File Anti-SLAPP Motions in Light of Amended Pleadings

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    Traub Lieberman Elects New Partners for 2020

    Decline in Home Construction Brings Down Homebuilder Stocks

    Homebuilder Predictions for Tallahassee

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    9 Positive Housing Statistics by Builder

    Feds Outline Workforce Rules for $39B in Chip Plant Funding

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Human Eye Resolution Virtual Reality for AEC

    China Home Glut May Worsen as Developers Avoid Price Drop

    Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects

    The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

    Are Contracting Parties Treated the Same When it Comes to Notice Obligations?

    Liability Cap Does Not Exclude Defense Costs for Loss Related to Deep Water Horizon

    Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies the Litigation Waiver of the One-Action Rule

    Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

    PFAS and the Challenge of Cleaning Up “Forever”

    Congratulations 2016 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    New Case Law Update: Mountain Valleys, Chevron Deference and a Long-Awaited Resolution on the Sacketts’ Small Lot

    With Trump's Tariff Talk, Time to Negotiate for Escalation Clauses in Construction Contracts

    Surfside Condo Collapse Investigators Uncover More Pool Deck Deviations

    Deductibles Limited to Number of Suits Filed Against Insured, Not Number of Actual Plaintiffs

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    Need to Cover Yourself for “Crisis” Changes on a Job Site? Try These Tips (guest post)

    Keeping Up With Fast-moving FAA Drone Regulations

    Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California

    The Brooklyn Condominium That’s Reinventing Outdoor Common Space
    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

    Factor the Factor in Factoring

    May 03, 2017 —
    What is factoring? Have you heard this term used in the business context? Factoring is not uncommon in the business world. It comes up when a business is in need of cash (immediate cash flow) and sells/assigns money owed under accounts receivable to a third party known as a factor. The factor purchases the accounts receivable at a discount in consideration of an assignment of the full value of the accounts receivable from the debtor (the entity that owes the money under the accounts receivable). The factoring arrangement is a recognized relationship, implicates Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code, and places obligations on the debtor to pay the factor directly for the accounts receivable upon notice of the assignment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

    Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert

    January 28, 2019 —
    In Delisle v. Crane Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1883, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S 459, the Supreme Court of Florida reaffirmed that the appropriate test for admissibility of an expert opinion about new or novel scientific evidence is the “Frye” test, not the “Daubert” test. As result of developing mesothelioma, Richard Delisle sued sixteen defendants, including Crane Company (Crane) and R.J. Reynolds, claiming that each exposed him to asbestos, which is a leading cause of mesothelioma. At trial, Crane and R.J. Reynolds sought to preclude the expert opinions of Mr. Delisle’s causation experts. The trial denied the motions and the jury awarded Mr. Delisle $8 million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams
    Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

    New Utah & Colorado Homebuilder Announced: Jack Fisher Homes

    July 23, 2014 —
    Henry Walker Homes announced the creation of Jack Fisher Homes, “a new venture that will continue their tradition of homebuilding excellence in Northern Utah, Southern Utah and Colorado,” according to a press release on PR Web. “Colin Wright, Owen Fisher, Chad Bessinger and Steve Sandholtz founded Jack Fisher Homes to focus on areas of their proven expertise in real estate, including residential land development and homebuilding, commercial assets in multifamily development and seniors’ housing,” PR Web reported. Jack Fisher has “1,300 single-family residential units in its pipeline” and “anticipates closing more than 230 homes in the remainder of 2014 with sales expected to exceed $70 million.” The homebuilder expects those numbers to double in 2015. “All of the original elements that made Henry Walker great are incorporated and improved upon with Jack Fisher Homes,” Wright said, according to the press release. “The influx of new capital, our years of experience, and the improved real estate landscape have us very excited about the future of Jack Fisher Homes.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    D.C. Decision Finding No “Direct Physical Loss” for COVID-19 Closures Is Not Without Severe Limitations

    August 24, 2020 —
    On August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Civ. Case No. 2020 CA 002424 B, a District of Columbia trial court found in favor of an insurer on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy. At its core, the decision ignores key arguments raised in the summary judgment briefing and is narrowly premised on certain dictionary definitions of the terms, “direct,” “physical,” and “loss.” Relying almost entirely on those definitions – each supplied by the insureds in their opening brief – the court set the stage for its ultimate conclusion by finding “direct” to mean “without intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate”; and “physical” to mean “of or pertaining to matter ….” The court then apparently accepted the policy’s circular definition of “loss” as meaning “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.” Importantly, however, despite recognizing the fundamental rule of insurance policy construction that the court “must interpret the contract ‘as a whole, giving reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all its terms, and ascertaining the meaning in light of all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made,’” the court apparently ignored the insureds’ argument that the term “property damage” is specifically defined in the policy to include “loss of use” without any specific reference to physical or tangible damage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Timely and Properly Assert Affirmative Defenses and Understand Statutory Conditions Precedent

    August 05, 2024 —
    A recent case serves as a reminder to TIMELY and PROPERLY assert affirmative defenses and to understand statutory conditions precedent to construction lien claims. Failing to do one or the other could be severely detrimental to the position you want to take in a dispute, whether it is a lien foreclosure dispute, or any other dispute. In Scherf v. Tom Krips Construction, Inc., 2024 WL 3297592 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), the president of a construction company and his wife were building a residence. They orally accepted the proposal from the concrete shell contractor and asked for invoices to be submitted to the president’s construction company. No written contract was memorialized. The president and his wife did not pay the concrete shell contractor and the contractor recorded a lien and sued to foreclose on the lien. Years later (the case had been stayed because the president and his wife filed for bankruptcy and the shell contractor had to get leave of the automatic bankruptcy stay to pursue the lien foreclosure), the shell contractor moved for summary judgment. The president and his wife moved for leave to file an amended answer and affirmative defenses. They claimed the oral contract was with the construction company and the shell contractor was required to serve a Notice to Owner under Florida Statute s. 713.06. Alternatively, they argued that if the oral contract was with the president and his wife, the shell contractor was required to serve a Final Contractor’s Payment Affidavit at least 5 days before filing its lien foreclosure claim, and did not, as required by s. 713.06. 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

    California Assembly Bill Proposes an End to Ten Year Statute of Repose

    May 09, 2011 —

    California Assemblyman Furutani has introduced a bill that if passed would eliminate the ten year statute of repose in certain construction defect cases. The statute of repose would not apply when “an action in tort to recover damages for damage to real or personal property, or for personal injury or wrongful death from exposure to hazardous or toxic materials, pollution, hazardous waste, or associates environmental remediation activities,” according to the latest amended version of AB 1207.

    When Furutani first introduced the bill, it was aimed at small businesses only. However, the description of the bill, which read, “An act to amend Section 14010 of the Corporations Code, relating to small businesses” has been stricken from the bill, and it has been amended to read, “An act to amend Section 337.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil actions.”

    The change in the bill’s intent has caused some outcry among attorneys in the blogosphere. For instance, Sean Sherlock of Snell & Wilmer stated that “the proposed amendment is unnecessary, and would upset nearly 50 years of deliberative legislation and judicial precedent on construction defects liability and the 10–year statute — all apparently motivated by a decision in a single, isolated Superior Court lawsuit that has not yet been reviewed by the court of appeal.” Sherlock is referring to Acosta v. Shell Oil Company, in which the Superior Court agreed to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against the developer based in part on the ten year statute of repose. AB 1207 was amended five days after the ruling in Acosta v. Shell Oil Company.

    California AB 1207 has been re-referred to the Judiciary Committee.

    Read the full story…

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

    Construction Defect Disputes: Know Your Measure of Damages!!!!!

    January 21, 2025 —
    Remember this: know your measure of damages in a construction defect dispute. If you don’t, as shown below, the outcome can be unforgiving. The measure of damages is one of your most important elements of proof. You are filing suit for damages; thus, knowing what you can reasonably recovery is paramount. In a recent dispute, Bandklayder Development, LLC v. Sabga, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D91e (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), a residential developer sold a single-family house while it was under construction in an as-is purchase agreement. Post-closing, the purchasers claimed defects and served a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects letter. The purchaser subsequently initiated a construction defect lawsuit. During the nonjury trial, the purchaser’s expert testified that the purchasers suffered damages approximating $323,000 calculated as of January 19, 2022 (which was the date of the expert’s report). The expert further testified that the cost to finish the incomplete/defective work increased by 35% at the date of the May 2023 trial. However, the expert never testified as to the amount of damages as of the date of the contractual breach, which at the latest, would have been in April 2018 when the notice of construction defects letter was sent (or, at its earliest, June 2017 when closing occurred). At trial, the judge entered judgment for the purchasers in the amount of about $425,0000. This was reversed on appeal with judgment to be entered in favor of the developer. Why? Because the purchasers employed the wrong measure of damages and the only thing that prevented them from introducing the right measure of damages was within their control. Harsh outcome for not applying the correct measure of damages! 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

    World Green Building Council Calls for Net-Zero Embodied Carbon in Buildings by 2050

    November 18, 2019 —
    The World Green Building Council’s latest maneuver in its war against greenhouse gas emissions is a rallying cry for embodied-carbon reduction in buildings that involves global collaboration, communication, education, innovation and regulation. WGBC’s ambitious aim is to get to net-zero EC in all new construction and renovations by 2050. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of