BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering 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


    Want a Fair Chance at a Government Contract? Think Again

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/17/23) – A Flop in Flipping, Plastic Microbes and Psychological Hard Hats

    US Civil Rights Tools Are Failing the Most Polluted Black Communities

    Is it the End of the Story for Redevelopment in California?

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 37 White And Williams Lawyers

    Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground

    Haight Celebrates 2024 New Partner Promotions!

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

    New York Developers Facing Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Beth Cook Expands Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears

    Too Late for The Blame Game: Massachusetts Court Holds That the Statute of Repose Barred a Product Manufacturer from Seeking Contribution from a Product Installer

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Special Events

    Pinterest Nixes Big San Francisco Lease Deal in Covid Scaleback

    Pennsylvania: Searching Questions Ahead of Oral Argument in Domtar

    Construction Trust Fund Statutes: Know What’s Required in the State Where Your Project Is Underway

    Duty to Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Traub Lieberman Team Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Client Under Florida’s Newly Implemented Summary Judgment Standard

    Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area

    Auditor: Prematurely Awarded Contracts Increased Honolulu Rail Cost by $354M

    Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?

    Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

    How To Lock Disputes Out Of Your Project In Construction

    Mitigating FCRA Risk Through Insurance

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Bar to Raise on Green Standard

    Toll Brothers Report End of Year Results

    Parking Reform Takes Off on the West Coast

    Make Sure to Properly Perfect and Preserve Construction Lien Rights

    Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

    NIST Florida Condo Collapse Probe Develops Dozens of Hypotheses

    Appraisal May Include Cause of Loss Issues

    Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

    “Bee” Careful: Unique Considerations When Negotiating a Bee Storage Lease Agreement

    The Creation of San Fransokyo

    The Importance of Providing Notice to a Surety

    Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

    Prevailing Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Statutory Attorneys’ Fees Even if Defended by Principal

    Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Area Variance Standard; Property Owners May Obtain an Area Variance When Special Circumstances Existed at Purchase

    Industrialized Construction News 7/2022

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    Mediation Fails In Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages From Sureties for Alleged Contract Fraud

    Dynamics of Managing Professional Liability Claims for Design Builders

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Selected To The Best Lawyers In America© And Orange County "Lawyer Of The Year" 2020

    Health Officials Concerned About Lead-Tainted Dust Created by Detroit Home Demolitions

    Recession Graduates’ Six-Year Gap in Homeownership

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

    Saving Manhattan: Agencies, Consultants, Contractors Join Fight to Keep New York City Above Water

    New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose

    Righting Past Wrongs Through Equitable Development

    FEMA Offers to Review Hurricane Sandy Claims
    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. Drawing 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

    Trial Victory in San Mateo County!

    February 24, 2020 —
    Wilke Fleury attorneys Adriana Cervantes and Matt Powell recently prevailed at trial in a case involving a real property dispute in San Mateo County. Wilke Fleury represented the owner of an apartment building in an action against an individual who recently acquired the duplex on the adjoining property. As set forth in the pleadings, the Apartment’s owner, tenants, and invitees, used the property in many ways including access, parking, and recreational purposes for over five years, and the new owner had actual notice of that use before the purchase. Nonetheless, the new owner insisted the Apartment had no right to use the property, and filed an action to quiet title. Wilke Fleury filed a cross-complaint on behalf of the Apartment alleging that it had a prescriptive easement over the property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury

    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

    August 17, 2011 —

    The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Miller v. Lankow that Mr. Miller was within his rights to remediate his home, even though doing so destroyed the evidence of water intrusion.

    Linda Lankow built a home in 1992. In 2001 or 2002, Lankow discovered a stucco problem at the garage which she attributed to moisture intrusion. She asked the original contractor to fix the wall. In 2003, Lankow attempted to sell her home, but the home inspection revealed fungal growth in the basement. Lankow made further repairs, including alterations to the landscaping.

    In 2004, Lankow put her house on the market once again and entered into an agreement with David Miller. Miller declined to have an independent inspection, as the home had been repaired by professional contractors.

    In 2005, Miller put the house on the market. A prospective buyer requested a moisture inspection. The inspection firm, Private Eye, Inc. found “significant moisture intrusion problems.”

    Miller hired an attorney who sent letters to the contractors and to Lankow and her husband. Lankow’s husband, Jim Betz, an attorney, represented his wife and sent a letter to Miller’s attorney that Miller had declined an opportunity to inspect the home.

    In 2007, Miller’s new attorney sent letters to all parties that Miller had decided to begin remediation work on the house. All stucco was removed. Miller then filed a lawsuit against the prior owners, the builders, and the realtors.

    Two of the contractors and the prior owners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller had spoliated evidence by removing the stucco. They requested that Miller’s expert reports be excluded. The district court found for the defendants and imposed sanctions on Miller.

    The Minnesota Supreme court found that “a custodial party’s duty to preserve evidence is not boundless,” stating that “it may be particularly import to allow remediation in cases such as the one before us.” Their reasoning was that “remediation of the moisture intrusion problem in the home may be necessary, even essential, to address immediate health concerns.”

    Given that Miller needed to remediate the problem in order to continue living there, and that he had given the other parties a “full and fair opportunity to inspect,” the court found that he was within his rights. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it to them for review.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    To Catch a Thief

    March 06, 2023 —
    Tony Rader calls it “peeling back the onion”—the slow, methodical process of uncovering the full extent of an embezzlement scam that eventually totaled more than $1 million. What National Roofing Partners (NRP) first discovered was bad enough. The Coppell, Texas–headquartered company, which oversees a nationwide network of nearly 250 commercial roofing contractors, learned in 2018 that a South Texas firm called Statewide Texas Roofing was billing clients for work on behalf of NRP and pocketing all the money. It turned out to be a scheme masterminded by NRP’s then-president, who created Statewide, staffed the company with his kids and used phony work orders to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars in client fees from NRP. He’d been president for six years and with the company since it was created in 2007. It was a huge betrayal—and still just the tip of the iceberg. “Initially, we thought it was only half a million [dollars] or so,” says Tony Rader, NRP’s chief operating officer. “But I’ll never forget, [Chief Executive Officer] Steve [Little] and I were talking over a bourbon one night, and that’s when I told him, ‘I’ve seen this once before, and this is like an onion. You’ve only peeled off the outer layers. We’re going to be finding stuff for a year, and it’s just going to get bigger and bigger and bigger.’ He said, ‘You think?’ And I said, ‘Oh, I’m pretty sure.’” Rader was all too correct. Working with a third-party forensic accountant, NRP found that not only were its then-chief financial officer and several other employees involved in the scheme, but the president had also abused his corporate credit card, racking up personal charges going back to 2013—on luxury vacations, expensive dinners, clothes, jewelry, even his daughter’s destination wedding in Jamaica. The final tally on his scams: $1.4 million. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Durso, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colombia's $15 Billion Road Plan Bounces Back From Bribe Scandal

    June 03, 2019 —
    Colombia’s $15 billion highway program has come roaring back to life as laws to protect investors help confidence recover from a massive kickback scandal that had paralyzed the sector. Public works expanded 8.5% in the first quarter from a year earlier, a rare bright spot in an economy that has struggled to grow since oil prices crashed nearly five years ago. Colombia ranks 102 out of 140 nations in road infrastructure quality, behind Bolivia and Sierra Leone, according to World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness report. Fixing that problem, which has bedeviled Colombian industry and agriculture for centuries, can boost growth for a generation, the government believes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Oscar Medina, Bloomberg

    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

    June 28, 2013 —
    The construction defect law firm Anderson Shoech has a solution to some of the problems with the California courts. They note that cases often work their way through the system more slowly than they did in the past, due to “unprecedented cuts of over $1 billion from the State Court budget.” Prior to the cuts, cases were resolved “within six months to a year.” Under the current conditions, those involved in a lawsuit “would be lucky if their case was heard within 18 months of filing and could expect at least two full years to pass.” They recommend that California return to appropriately funding the court system. Failure to do so could cause business to go to states “with a functioning and predictable court system.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Good Indoor Air Quality Keeps Workers Healthy and Happy

    June 10, 2024 —
    Most people primarily think of air conditioners as appliances to keep people cool. However, a 2024 study of office air conditioners shows that they promote indoor air quality by minimizing the harmful effects of bushfire smoke. The research indicated air conditioners used in office environments can trap particles and reduce people’s exposure to harmful elements such as sulfates and nitrates. The researchers collected particulate matter from commercial air conditioner filters during the peak bushfire season in Australia. Evaluations showed the daily particulate matter levels were usually two to three times the average amount. However, some hourly maximums were 10.5 times the usual. The team took samples for four months, finding the specimens exceeded national air quality standards 19% of the time. Analyses performed in a university showed commercially available air filters captured significant amounts of bushfire smoke, reducing the associated hazards for building occupants. Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Gabel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Preserves Possibility of Coverage

    January 15, 2019 —
    The policy's anti-concurrent causation clause preserved the possibility of coverage when the insurer's motion for summary judgment to disclaim its indemnity obligation for damage caused by Hurricane Sandy was overturned by the Second Circuit. Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 29821 (Oct. 23, 2018 2nd Cir. ) In 2012, Madelaine Chocolate suffered significant damage to its business due to storm surges created by Hurricane Sandy. Madelaine Chocolate had an "all-risk" policy issued by Great Northern. Madelaine Chocolate filed a claim for property damage of approximately $40 million and business income loss and extra operation expenses of $13.5 million. Great Northern denied most of the claim, reasoning that the storm surge damage was excluded under the policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

    January 13, 2017 —
    Construction lienors need to appreciate on the frontend that recovering statutory attorney’s fees in a construction lien action is NOT automatic—far from it. This is because the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees in a construction lien action is determined by the “significant issues test,” a subjective test with no bright line standards based on who the trial court finds prevailed on the significant issues in the case. If you want to talk about the subjective and convoluted nature of recovering attorney’s fees in a construction lien action under the significant issues test, a recent opinion by the Fourth District Court of Appeal is unfortunately another nail in the coffin. In Newman v. Guerra, 2017 WL 33702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), a contractor recorded a construction lien on a residential renovation project and filed a lien foreclosure lawsuit. The homeowner countersued the contractor and asserted a fraudulent lien claim pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.31. An evidentiary hearing was held on whether the lien was a fraudulent lien and the trial court held that the lien was fraudulent (therefore unenforceable) because it included amounts that were not lienable under the law. The remaining claims including both parties’ breach of contract claims proceeded to trial. There was no attorney’s fees provision in the contract. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found that the contractor was entitled a monetary judgment on its breach of contract claim. 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