BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failure
    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


    New Jersey’s Governor Puts Construction Firms on Formal Notice of His Focus on Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

    California Contractors: Amended Section 7141.5 Provides Important License Renewal Safety Net

    Massachusetts Appellate Court Confirms Construction Defects are Not Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policies

    Measures Landlords and Property Managers Can Take in Response to a Reported COVID-19 Infection

    A Lack of Sophistication With the Construction Contract Can Play Out In an Ugly Dispute

    Affordable Housing, Military Contracts and Mars: 3D Printing Construction Potential Builds

    Living With a Millennial. Or Grandma.

    2023 Executive Insights From Leaders in Construction Law

    The Fair Share Act Impacts the Strategic Planning of a Jury Trial

    The Simple Reason Millennials Aren't Moving Out Of Their Parents' Homes: They're Crushed By Debt

    Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims

    A New Study: Unexpected Overtime is Predictable and Controllable

    Summary Findings of the Fourth National Climate Assessment

    Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

    Buyers Are Flocking to NYC’s Suburbs. Too Bad There Aren’t Many Homes to Sell.

    Wake County Justice Center- a LEED Silver Project done right!

    Top Developments March 2024

    Seven Former North San Diego County Landfills are Leaking Contaminants

    Sales of U.S. New Homes Decline After Record May Revision

    Recommendations for Property Owners After A Hurricane: Submit a Claim

    Construction in the Time of Coronavirus

    Packard Condominiums Settled with Kosene & Kosene Residential

    Dave McLain included in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    Unesco Denies Claim It Cleared Construction of Zambezi Dam

    Construction Defects and Second Buyers in Pennsylvania

    Res Judicata Not Apply to Bar Overlapping Damages in Separate Suits Against Contractor and Subcontractor

    Construction Picks Up Post-COVID and So Do Claims (and A Construction Lawyer Can Help)

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    Allocating Covered and Uncovered Damages in Jury Verdict

    Illinois Favors Finding Construction Defects as an Occurrence

    Long-Planned Miami Mega Mixed-Use Development Nears Initial Debut

    The Privette Doctrine and Its Exceptions: Court of Appeal Grapples With the Easy and Not So Easy

    Full Extent of Damage From Turkey Quakes Takes Shape

    Colorado’s Abbreviated Legislative Session Offers Builders a Reprieve

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/06/21)

    Wes Payne Receives Defense Attorney of the Year Award

    The Great London Property Exodus Is in Reverse as Tenants Return

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Recognized Among The Top 50 Construction Law FirmsTM of 2023 by Construction Executive

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

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    'Right to Repair' and Fixing Equipment in a Digital Age

    Five Steps Employers Should Take In the Second Year Of the COVID-19 Pandemic

    NYC Luxury-Condo Buyers Await New Towers as Sales Slow

    Two Injured in Walkway Collapse of Detroit Apartment Complex

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    Eleventh Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict on Covered Property Loss

    Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court

    Procedural Matters Matter!

    TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages

    Coverage Denied Where Occurrence Takes Place Outside Coverage Territory
    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

    Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

    November 08, 2017 —
    Recently, a New Jersey Magistrate ruled that an insurer did not have to provide coverage for a chocolatier’s property damage and business interruption losses due to Hurricane Sandy. Madeline Chocolate Novelties Inc. (Madeline), a family-owned chocolatier in Queens Rockaway Beach, held a one-year all-risk policy with Great Northern Insurance (Great Northern). The policy contained a flood exclusion and a windstorm endorsement. When Hurricane Sandy hit in October 2012, Madeline suffered extensive damage and ceased operations during the ensuing holiday season. The chocolatier claimed $40 million in property damage and $13.5 million in business interruption losses and sought coverage under its policy. Great Northern paid just under $4 million and denied the remainder of the claim, citing the policy’s flood exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com

    Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA

    August 03, 2022 —
    Takeaways
    • The Supreme Court sided with a coalition of states and coal mining companies constraining EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
    • The Supreme Court’s deployment of the “major questions doctrine” could have far-reaching implications for agencies’ authority to take actions that are politically and economically significant.
    • The Court also announced a broad interpretation of standing, finding that the challengers could bring their suit notwithstanding EPA’s announced nonenforcement of the Clean Power Plan and intent to engage in a rulemaking to replace it.
    Introduction On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, invalidating the 2015 Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP). Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, holding that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to devise emissions caps based on “generation shifting”—the approach EPA took in the CPP wherein power plants would be required to transition from higher-emitting (e.g., coal) to lower-emitting (e.g., natural-gas) to then even lower-emitting (e.g., wind and solar) electricity production. The Court’s holding that the case was justiciable despite the Biden administration’s stated intent to repeal the Clean Power Plan and engage in a new rulemaking, as well as its deployment of the “major questions doctrine,” is likely to have far-reaching implications for legal challenges to all administrative agency actions. Reprinted courtesy of Anne Idsal Austin, Pillsbury, Shelby L. Dyl, Pillsbury and Sheila McCafferty Harvey, Pillsbury Ms. Austin may be contacted at anne.austin@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Dyl may be contacted at shelby.dyl@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Harvey may be contacted at sheila.harvey@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Economic Damages and the Right to Repair Act: You Can’t Have it Both Ways

    March 16, 2017 —
    In 2002, the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 800 also known as the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code Sections 895 et seq.) in an effort to stem a then rising tide in residential construction defect litigation. SB 800, which applies to newly constructed residential units including single-family homes and condominiums (but not condominium conversions) sold after January 1, 2003, was intended to curb residential construction defect lawsuits by giving developers and others in the construction chain an opportunity to repair construction defects before being sued in court. SB 800 also provides minimum construction standards and limits the time in which a homeowner can bring a claim for construction defects. In Acqua Vista Homeowners Association v. MWI, Case No. D068406 (January 26, 2017), the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District examined the circumstances in which homeowners can sue a material supplier under the Right to Repair Act. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Owner’s Obligation Giving Notice to Cure to Contractor and Analyzing Repair Protocol

    November 23, 2016 —
    Recently, I read an informative article from another attorney addressing considerations of an owner when it receives a repair protocol in response to a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of defect letter. This is a well-written article and raises two important issues applicable to construction defect disputes: 1) how is an owner supposed to respond to a repair protocol submitted by a contractor in accordance with Florida’s 558 notice of construction defects procedure and 2) irrespective of Florida’s 558 procedure, how is an owner supposed to treat a contractual notice to cure / notice of defect requirement that requires the owner to give the contractor a notice to cure a defect. This article raises such pertinent points that I wanted to address the issues and topics raised in this article. 558 Procedure–Owner’s Receipt of Contractor’s Repair Protocol When a contractor submits a repair protocol to an owner in response to a notice of construction defects letter per Florida Statutes Chapter 558, the owner should seriously consider that protocol. The owner does this by discussing with counsel and any retained expert. The owner needs to know whether the protocol is a reasonable, cost-effective protocol to repair the asserted defects or, alternatively, whether the protocol is merely a band-aid approach and/or otherwise insufficiently addresses the claimed defects. Every scenario is different. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

    Reminder: Your Accounting and Other Records Matter

    July 30, 2015 —
    Recently, I’ve posted on mechanic’s lien changes, mediation and other more “legal” topics here at Construction Law Musings. Today’s post is a practical one and one that will help your friendly neighborhood construction attorney greatly should a dispute arise. The tip for this week? Keep clean accounting and other records by construction job and in an organized fashion. This tip seems like a simple one, but I run into situations where the accounting on jobs, contracts, invoices and other key documents for a project are either missing or haphazardly kept. In the best of these cases, I have to spend additional time (read attorney fees) to attempt a recreation of the job costs and flow of the project. In the worst, I have had to either release or avoid filing what could have been a valid mechanic’s lien because timing could not be determined from the records. I also thank my friend Craig Martin for another unfortunate horror story of poor accounting that should be a warning to us all. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL

    January 24, 2018 —
    RICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ. GLENN T. BARGER, ESQ. JON A. TURIGLIATTO, ESQ. DAVID A. NAPPER, ESQ. The Construction Industry finally has its answer. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims alleged to have resulted from economic loss, property damage, or both. Our office has closely tracked the matter since its infancy. The California Supreme Court’s holding resolves the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District’s holding in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District’s holding in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. By way of background, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held inLiberty Mutual that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims involving violations of SB800’s building standards that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003 are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act, including specifically the requirement that notice be provided to the builder prior to filing a lawsuit. Thus, the Court of Appeal ruled that SB800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. After extensive examination of the text and legislative history of the Right to Repair Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling that SB800 preempts common law claims for property damage. The Complaint at issue alleged construction defects causing both property damage and economic loss. After filing the operative Complaint, the homeowners dismissed the SB800 cause of action and took the position that the Right to Repair Act was adopted to provide a remedy for construction defects causing only economic loss and therefore SB800 did not alter preexisting common law remedies in cases where actual property damage or personal injuries resulted. The builder maintained that SB800 and its pre-litigation procedures still applied in this case where actually property damages were alleged to have occurred. The Supreme Court found that the text and legislative history reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Right to Repair Act. Specifically the text reveals “…an intent to create not merely a remedy for construction defects but the remedy.” Additionally certain clauses set forth in SB800 “…evinces a clear intent to displace, in whole or in part, existing remedies for construction defects.” Not surprisingly, the Court confirmed that personal injury damages are expressly not recoverable under SB800, which actually assisted the Court in analyzing the intent of the statutory scheme. The Right to Repair Act provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying defects gave rise to any property damage. The Supreme Court further found that the legislative history of SB800 confirms that displacement of parts of the existing remedial scheme was “…no accident, but rather a considered choice to reform construction defect litigation.” Further emphasizing how the legislative history confirms what the statutory text reflects, the Supreme Court offered the following summary: “the Act was designed as a broad reform package that would substantially change existing law by displacing some common law claims and substituting in their stead a statutory cause of action with a mandatory pre-litigation process.” As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that the builder is entitled to a stay and the homeowners are required to comply with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in the Right to Repair Act before their lawsuit may proceed. The seminal ruling by the California Supreme Court shows great deference to California Legislature and the “major stakeholders on all sides of construction defect litigation” who participated in developing SB800. A significant win for builders across the Golden State, homeowners unequivocally must proceed via SB800 for all construction defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. We invite you to contact us should you have any questions. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard Glucksman, Glenn Barger, Jon Turigliatto and David Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Turgliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Governor Signs Permit Extension Bill Extending Permit Deadlines to One Year

    October 23, 2018 —
    It’s like that feeling you got when your teacher said you have another week to complete your group project. On September 21, 2018, Governor Brown signed AB 2913, which, for the first time, provides a uniform 12-month period across the state for work to commence before a building permit expires. Previously, the period was six months. In addition to doubling the expiration period, the statute includes a “justifiable cause” provision permitting local building departments to extend the time for one or more additional periods of not more than 180 days per extension upon written demonstration of “justifiable cause for the extension.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    40 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Ed Doernberger

    November 23, 2016 —
    Forty years ago, on the Big Island of Hawaii, Edwin L. Doernberger was sworn in as an attorney. Fifteen years ago, Ed rejoined two former partners to help build an exciting new boutique insurance policyholder practice. Today, Saxe Doernberger & Vita is pleased to celebrate the 40th anniversary of its most distinguished partner. “Ed’s energy and enthusiasm are undiminished,” said co-founder and Managing Partner, Tracy Alan Saxe. “He’s still one of the firm’s most active litigators.” Ed has extensive appellate experience, having argued before the Connecticut and Hawaii Supreme and Appellate Courts, New York Appellate Courts, and the Second and Ninth Circuits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tracy Alan Saxe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Saxe may be contacted at tas@sdvlaw.com