BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness construction
    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


    Asbestos Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

    Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

    What are the Potential Damages when a House is a Lemon?

    Maintenance Issues Ignite Arguments at Indiana School

    Construction Defects Survey Results Show that Warranty Laws Should be Strengthened for Homeowners & Condominium Associations

    Material Prices Climb…And Climb…Are You Considering A Material Escalation Provision?

    Court Rules Planned Development of Banning Ranch May Proceed

    Question of Parties' Intent Prevents Summary Judgment for Insurer

    Environmental Suit Against Lockheed Martin Dismissed

    Attorney Risks Disqualification If After Receiving Presumptively Privileged Communication Fails to Notify Privilege Holder and Uses Document Pending Privilege Determination by Court

    Modernist Houses Galore! [visual candy for architects]

    San Francisco Bay Bridge Tower Rod Fails Test

    In Real Life the Bad Guy Sometimes Gets Away: Adding Judgment Debtors to a Judgment

    Project-Specific Commercial General Liability Insurance

    Hamptons Home Up for Foreclosure That May Set Record

    Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company

    Alabama Supreme Court States Faulty Workmanship can be an Occurrence

    Sierra Pacific v. Bradbury Goes Unchallenged: Colorado’s Six-Year Statute of Repose Begins When a Subcontractor’s Scope of Work Ends

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/17/24) – Travel & Tourism Reach All-Time High, President Biden Emphasizes Housing in SOTU Address, and State Transportation Projects Under Scrutiny

    Legal Disputes Soar as Poor Information Management Impacts the AEC Industry

    $109-Million Renovation Begins on LA's Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station

    Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement

    No Coverage Where Cracks in Basement Walls Do Not Amount to Sudden Collapse

    Chicago’s Bungalows Are Where the City Comes Together

    Haight’s Stevie Baris Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Northern California Rising Stars

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    CGL Policies and the Professional Liabilities Exclusion

    First-Time Homebuyers Make Biggest Share of Deals in 17 Years

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2024 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    DC Circuit Approves, with Some Misgivings, FERC’s Approval of the Atlantic Sunrise Natural Gas Pipeline Extension

    Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens

    Scarce Cemetery Space Creates Prices to Die For: Cities

    “Families First Coronavirus Response Act”: Emergency Paid Leave for Construction Employers with Fewer Than 500 Employees

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    No Concrete Answers on Whether Construction Defects Are Occurrences

    U.S. Architecture Firms’ Billing Index Faster in Dec.

    Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

    Manhattan Condo Lists for Record $150 Million

    Construction Site Blamed for Flooding

    First Circuit Rejects Insurer’s “Insupportable” Duty-to-Cooperate Defense in Arson Coverage Suit

    Survey: Workers Lack Awareness of Potentially Hazardous Nanomaterials

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    New Jersey School Blames Leaks on Construction Defects, May Sue

    Road to Record $199 Million Award Began With Hunch on Guardrails

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property

    Preserving your Rights to Secure Payment on Construction Projects (with Examples)

    'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub

    Heathrow Speeds New-Runway Spending Before Construction Approval
    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

    It’s Time for a Net Zero Building Boom

    May 02, 2022 —
    Is it too much to ask Americans to take their foot off the gas and reset their thermostats? On March 18, the International Energy Agency released a 10-point plan for reducing oil use, arguing that advanced economies can readily cut demand by 2.7 million barrels a day in the next four months, an amount large enough to avoid major supply shortages as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine roils the energy market. The plan’s major prescriptions will look familiar to anyone who recalls the OPEC shocks of the 1970s: reducing speed limits to improve gas mileage, boosting transit use, and discouraging non-essential car and air travel. But its exclusive focus on the transportation sector overlooks the substantial efficiency gains to be had from the built environment: Buildings consume about 40% of the energy used in the U.S. every year. Yet reducing energy use in buildings has been stigmatized by fossil-fuel interests as a lifestyle deprivation — an argument that’s been internalized by pundits and politicians even as geopolitical turmoil drive spikes in oil prices and climate change impacts upend millions of lives. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James S. Russell, Bloomberg

    In Contracts, One Word Makes All the Difference

    July 21, 2018 —
    Here at Musings, I sometimes feel as if I am beating the “contract is king” drum to death. However, each time I start to get this feeling, a new case out of either the Virginia state courts or the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals here in Richmond reminds me that we all, lawyers and contractors alike, need to be reminded of this fact on a regular basis. The terms written into a construction contract (or any other contract for that matter) will control the outcome of any dispute in just about every case. A recent 4th Circuit case takes this to the extreme in pointing out the the choice which of two tiny words can change the entire set of procedural rules and even the courthouse in which your dispute will be decided. In FindWhere Holdings Inc. v. Systems Env. Optimization LLC, the Fourth Circuit looked at a forum selection clause found in a contract between the parties. In this case, the clause stated that any dispute would be litigated in the courts “of the State of Virginia.” When the defendants tried to remove the case from Virginia state court to the Eastern District of Virginia federal courts, the federal court remanded the case, sending it back to the Circuit Court of Loudoun County, Virginia. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    BIM Meets Reality on the Construction Site

    September 25, 2018 —
    BIM models are mostly used by foremen on construction sites. But what if they could be made available for workers at the press of a button? This question was what the Finnish government-funded KIRA pilot project set out to answer. As a by-product, the project also produced augmented reality (AR) solutions for construction sites. The research project was called ”Digitalization of a construction project based on role and location information” (RoPa). It was conducted by construction company Fira and engineering consultancy Sweco. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Industry Standard and Sole Negligence Defenses Can’t Fix a Defect

    June 14, 2021 —
    Strict products liability cases have been the subject of much fluctuation in the Pennsylvania courts over the last few years. Utilizing hope created by the courts in recent strict liability cases, defendants have tried to revive defenses based on meeting industry standards and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence. Recently, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania tempered that hope with limitations of how far strict liability defenses can extend. In Sullivan v. Werner Co., No. 3086 EDA 2019, 2021 Pa. Super. LEXIS 210, an appellate panel of the Superior Court reviewed the lower court’s decision to exclude evidence of industry standards and of the plaintiff’s negligence in a trial that resulted in a $2.5 million verdict for the plaintiff. Upholding the decision of the lower court, the court found that the proffered evidence was within the discretion of the court to exclude. In Sullivan, Michael Sullivan (Sullivan) was working as a union carpenter at a renovation project for a local school. He and his apprentice were installing exterior sheathing to the outdoor walls. In order to install the sheathing, Sullivan had to use a scaffold. He put together a new SRS-72 scaffold manufactured by Werner Company (Werner) that his foreman bought at Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (Lowe’s) and used the scaffold during the course of his work. While on the scaffold, Sullivan fell through and crashed to the ground. He suffered permanent injuries as a result of the incident. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit

    May 24, 2021 —
    On Wednesday, a federal judge in Texas denied Factory Mutual’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the presence of COVID-19 on their property caused covered physical loss or damage in the case of Cinemark Holdings, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., No. 4:21-CV-00011 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2021). This is the third COVID-19-related business interruption decision from Judge Amos Mazzant since March, but the first in favor of a policyholder. Taken together, the three decisions have two key takeaways and provide a roadmap for policyholders in all jurisdictions. First, the Cinemark decision recognizes that the alleged presence of COVID-19 viral particles that physically altered the policyholder’s property is sufficient under federal pleading standards and controlling state law. In its motion, FM relied on Judge Mazzant’s recent decision in Selery Fulfillment, Inc. v. Colony Insurance Co., No. 4:20-CV-853, 2021 WL 963742 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2021), which dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the policyholder’s losses were caused by government orders that closed its business, rather than from the actual presence of the virus on its property. The Court held that government orders alone do not constitute physical loss or damage, and declined to rule on whether the physical presence of the virus does. Judge Mazzant reached the same conclusion weeks later in Aggie Investments, L.L.C. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 4:21-CV-0013, 2021 WL 1550479 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021). Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fraud and Construction Contracts- Like Oil and Water?

    December 31, 2014 —
    We have discussed the interaction of fraud and breach of contract actions on occasion here at Construction Law Musings. In most cases the two do not mix. Between the economic loss rule and the general desire of Virginia courts to keep contract actions and tort actions separate, most of the time it is impossible to make a fraud action relating to a contract stick in a construction context. The Virginia Supreme Court recently confirmed this fraud/contract distinction. As discussed in the Virginia Real Estate Land Use & Construction Law blog (Thanks Heidi!), Station No. 2, LLC v. Lynch, et. al. strongly re-states the Virginia courts’ strong reluctance to allow a breach of contract turn into a claim for fraud. Without re-iterating the great discussion of the facts of the case found in the post by Heidi Meizner, suffice it to say that certain contractual promises between and among the parties were not fulfilled much to Station 2, LLC’s detriment. 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

    Massive Danish Hospital Project Avoids Fire Protection Failures with Imerso Construction AI

    December 23, 2023 —
    Ensuring regulatory compliance of firewall constructions is getting a high-tech boost. Over the past 16 months, the construction team responsible for the iconic new Nyt Hospital Nordsjælland near Copenhagen used Imerso construction AI technology to achieve remarkable results. By using Imerso, the team enhanced work productivity while preventing costs and delays worth €5.2 million during the construction of the superstructure. Inspired by this success, the team led by Project Manager Anders Kaas has since been eager to explore the potential of the technology in other areas. The opportunity arose to address a topic that has traditionally posed significant challenges and expenses in numerous construction projects – ensuring regulatory compliance of fire barriers and firewall constructions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Carillion Fallout Affects Major Hospital Project in Liverpool

    October 30, 2018 —
    Managers of a 90%-complete, 646-bed hospital in Liverpool will take charge of the project after unravelling a public-private partnership with the contractor Carillion Plc, which collapsed ignominiously in January (ENR 1/22 p. 12). Following cancellation of the contractor’s other large U.K. hospital P3, near Birmingham, project lenders face large losses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Peter Reina, ENR
    Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com