BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineer
    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 Contractor’s Contingency: What Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know and Be Wary Of

    Stay of Coverage Case Appropriate While Court Determines Arbitrability of Dispute

    Meet Orange County Bar Associations 2024 Leaders

    Illinois Earns C- on its 2022 Infrastructure Report Card while Making Strides on Roads and Transit

    Are You a Construction Lienor?

    HHMR Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    Boston Team Obtains Complete Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in Professional Liability Matter

    Remote Trials Can Control Prejudgment Risk

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

    Unions Win Prevailing Wage Challenge Brought By Charter Cities: Next Stop The Supreme Court?

    Following Pennsylvania Trend, Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Construction Defect

    Hurricane Ian: Florida Expedites Road Work as Damage Comes Into Focus

    Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Fall to Lowest Since 2012

    Coronavirus, Force Majeure, and Delay and Time-Impact Claims

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Two Recent Cases Address Copyright Protection for Architectural Works

    The Importance of Preliminary Notices on Private Works Projects

    California Condo Architects Not Liable for Construction Defects?

    Wood Product Rotting in New Energy Efficient Homes

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Presidential Executive Order 14008: The Climate Crisis Order

    New Executive Orders Expedite the Need for Contractors to Go Green

    Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo

    Ambitious Building Plans in Boston

    Traub Lieberman Chair Emeritus Awarded the 2022 Vince Donohue Award by the International Association of Claim Professionals

    Code Changes Pave Way for CLT in Tall Buildings and Spark Flammability Debate

    The Best Lawyers in America© Peer Review Names Eight Newmeyer & Dillion Partners in Multiple Categories and Two Partners as Orange County’s Lawyers of the Year in Construction and Insurance Law

    Construction Lien Needs to Be Recorded Within 90 Days from Lienor’s Final Furnishing

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

    90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

    Courthouse Reporter Series: The Travails of Statutory Construction...Defining “Labor” under the Miller Act

    A Court-Side Seat: Guam’s CERCLA Claim Allowed, a “Roundup” Verdict Upheld, and Judicial Process Privilege Lost

    Washington Court of Appeals Divisions Clash Over Interpretations of the Statute of Repose

    Five Issues to Consider in Government Contracting (Or Any Contracting!)

    Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

    WSHB Ranked 4th Most Diverse Law Firm in U.S.

    EPA Coal Ash Cleanup Rule Changes Send Utilities, Agencies Back to Drawing Board

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces Jessica Garland as Its Newest Partner

    Massachusetts Pulls Phased Trigger On Its Statute of Repose

    Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings

    Tall Mass Timber Buildings Now Possible Under 2021 IBC Code Changes

    Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor

    New Mexico Adopts Right to Repair Act

    Alabama Federal Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Construction Defect Declaratory Judgment Action Due to Expanded Duty to Defend Standard

    Investing in Metaverse Real Estate: Mind the Gap Between Recognized and Realized Potential

    House Committee Kills Colorado's 2015 Attainable Housing Bill

    That’s Common Knowledge! Failure to Designate an Expert Witness in a Professional Negligence Case is Not Fatal Where “Common Knowledge” Exception Applies

    Presenting a “Total Time” Delay Claim Is Not Sufficient

    Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy

    Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

    Double-Wide World Cup Seats Available to 6-Foot, 221-Pound Fans
    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

    Key Amendments to Insurance Claims-Handling Regulations in Puerto Rico

    September 23, 2019 —
    Policyholders in Puerto Rico should be aware of significant benefits provided by recent amendments to the Insurance Code. New rules establish an expedited method of property insurance dispute resolution, mandatory expedited partial payments in the event of catastrophic events, and protection against bad faith claims handling by insurers. Appraisal Process with a Puerto Rican Twist A key amendment is the establishment of an appraisal process, widely used for many years in the United States and now adopted in Puerto Rico. Commercial and personal property insurers in Puerto Rico shall include, in their policies, a clause for an appraisal process according to Article 11.150 of the Insurance Code of Puerto Rico, 26 L.P.R.A. § 101 et seq. (“the Code”). The appraisal process provides both policyholders and insurers the option to submit insurance claims to an impartial umpire if a dispute arises over the value of covered damages or losses. The umpire and appraisers do not have authority to resolve coverage or legal issues. They can only resolve disputes over the quantum claimed for losses already determined to be covered by the insurer. Id. Each party is required to pay its own appraiser’s fees and split equally the fees of the umpire. Id. Reprinted courtesy of Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Avila may be contacted at ara@sdvlaw.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    February 23, 2016 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday at Construction Law Musings I welcome Matthew Evans. Matt is the owner of Law Offices of Matthew S. Evans, III, LLC located in Annapolis, Maryland. He has practiced construction, real estate and land use law in Maryland and D.C. for thirteen years. Prior to opening his own firm in May 2011, Mr. Evans was a partner at a mid-sized firm in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Mr. Evans lives in Historic Annapolis (only three short blocks from his office) with his wife Margaret, and three children, Matthew (5), Bo (4) and Peyton (2). Some of the most common calls I get are from irate contractor or subcontractor clients who have not been paid demanding that I “lien the property”. Many times after calming the client down, I determine, to their dismay, that they are not entitled to a mechanic’s lien. In Maryland, the mechanic’s lien law is driven by statute, which contains specific requirements which must be met before the client is entitled to a lien. The first question is whether the contractor or subcontractor is entitled to a lien for the work performed. Under Maryland law, “every building erected and every building repaired, rebuilt, or improved to the extent of 15 percent of its value is subject to establishment of a lien…for the payment of all debts.” It’s easy when dealing with new construction. No matter how small your portion of the work, the property is subject to the establishment of a lien. It is more difficult to determine entitlement when there is either a total or partial renovation or other work. The question becomes how do you determine the value of the building, and whether it has been improved “to the extent of 15 percent of its value.” Believe me, I have seen creative and some not so creative methods of calculation used by counsel to prove that certain work does or does not meet the requirement. 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

    Court Denies Insurers' Motions for Summary Judgment Under All Risk Policies

    June 05, 2017 —
    The federal district court found that the insurers could not escape coverage by summary judgment under their all risk policies. Eagle Harbour Condo Assoc'n v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54761 (W.D. Wash. April 10, 2017). Eagle Harbour Condominium Association sued several of its insurers who denied coverage for hidden water damage. Various insurers provided coverage from 1988 to 2015. The Association asserted that wind-driven rain and inadequate construction allowed water to penetrate the buildings' sheathing and framing, causing decades of deterioration and decay, until the damage was exposed to view in August 2014. The insurers claimed that the loss resulted from poor decisions in constructing and inadequately maintaining a stucco building in the wet and windy Pacific Northwest. The Association argued that the policies did not explicitly exclude damage caused by wind-driven rain, so there was coverage. 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

    Revamp to Nationwide Permits Impacting Oil and Gas Pipeline, Utility and Telecom Line Work

    March 29, 2021 —
    To avoid delay costs and penalties, contractors involved in pipeline and utilities construction maintenance, repair and removal need to understand how the 43 year old Nationwide Permit (NWP) regime has changed specific to the NWP 12 and what is now required for compliance. This change is important for contractors who construct, maintain, or repair pipelines that cross or impact waters of the United States, including wetlands. NWPs are a useful tool to streamline construction of a pipeline project, but it is important for contractors to know when certain terms and conditions still apply to the particular NWP and those that have been eliminated. On January 13, 2021, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) published a final rule that reissued and modified twelve existing NWPs and issued four new NWPs that will take effect on March 15, 2021.1 The remaining 40 NWPs that were not reissued or modified under this rule will continue under the general conditions and definitions of the January 6, 2017 final rule. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alex P. Prochaska, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Prochaska may be contacted at aprochaska@joneswalker.com

    Your Construction Contract

    April 08, 2024 —
    Your construction contract is an important topic. What’s even more important is YOUR process for reviewing and negotiating construction contracts. Are you simply acting as a riverboat gambler willing to assume undue risk because you don’t value the investment in understanding what you are signing? If so, it becomes hard to complain about what you agreed to and signed when you chose NOT to invest in the process. Investing in the process means you are working with a construction attorney, you have an insurance broker that understands your industry, you have resources in place to ensure risk is negotiated and allocated, and you understand what risk you are assuming to make sure you are properly protecting and perfecting your rights, and transferring risk downstream. When it comes to construction contracts, there are really three approaches: 1. Riverboat Gambler. This is the “I’ll sign whatever you give me because I don’t want to lose the contract / revenue.” Under this approach, you are not worried about undue risk because you don’t value the investment in the next two approaches. Your thought process is that you’ll care about the risk when an issue pops up, i.e., the riverboat gambler. This is not an approach I’d recommend because it is contrary to the adage, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” This is simply a reactive approach to issues and risks. The other two approaches are more proactive and better suited to understand and manage risk. 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

    Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy

    November 02, 2020 —
    In Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020), the Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether unintentionally faulty subcontractor work that damages an insured’s work product constitutes an “accident” under a commercial general liability insurance policy. In aligning itself with a growing number of jurisdictions, the Michigan Supreme Court answered, “yes.” In Skanska, a construction manager brought an action against a commercial general liability (CGL) insurer seeking coverage as additional insured for the cost of repairs to correct faulty work performed by its subcontractor in renovation of medical center. In 2009, the construction manager hired MAP to install a steam boiler and related piping for the medical center’s heating system. MAP’s installation included several expansion joints, which it was later discovered, were installed backward. Significant damage to concrete, steel, and the heating system occurred as a result. The construction manager performed the work of repairing and replacing the damaged property to the tune of $1.4 million, and submitted a claim to MAP’s CGL insurer, Amerisure, seeking coverage as an additional insured. Amerisure denied the claim contending that MAP’s defective construction was not a covered “occurrence” within the CGL policy. The policy defined “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” but did not define the term “accident.” The trial court looked to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hawkeye-Sec. Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369 (1990), which defined “accident” as “…a result which is not anticipated and…takes place without the insured’s foresight or expectation and without design or intentional causation on his part.” But, again citing Hawkeye, the trial court concluded that “[d]efective workmanship, standing alone, is not an occurrence within the meaning of a[ ] general liability insurance contract[;] an occurrence exists where the insured’s faulty work product damages the property of another.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    Wait, You Want An HOA?! Restricting Implied Common-Interest Communities

    September 17, 2018 —
    While the butt of many jokes and a thorn in the side of some property owners, homeowners associations (“HOAs”) serve the vital function of collecting and disbursing funds to care for and maintain common areas of residential developments. Without HOAs, neighborhood open spaces, parks, and other amenities risk falling into disrepair through a type of tragedy of the commons, wherein residents use such amenities but refuse to subsidize care and maintenance for these common areas believing someone else will pony-up the funds. HOAs, when properly organized and managed, avoid this problem by ensuring everyone pays their fair shares for the common areas. Colorado’s Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”), C.R.S. § 38-33.3-101 et seq., sets forth the manner in which such common-interest communities, and their related associations, must be established. Earlier this summer, the Colorado Supreme Court issued an opinion limiting the application of previous case law that allowed for the establishment of common-interest communities (and their related HOAs) by implication. See McMullin v. Hauer, 420 P.3d 271 (Colo. 2018). Prior to McMullin, Colorado courts had been increasing the number of factual scenarios implying the creation of common-interest communities under CCIOA. See e.g., Evergreen Highlands Assoc. v. West, 73 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2003) (finding an implied obligation of landowners to fund a pre-existing HOA’s obligations); DeJean v. Grosz, 412 P.3d 733 (Colo. App. 2015) (finding an implied right of a homeowner to found an HOA after the developer filed a declaration expressing an intent to form one but ultimately failed to do so); and Hiwan Homeowners Assoc. v. Knotts, 215 P.3d 1271 (Colo. App. 2009) (finding the existence of an HOA despite no common property existing within the development). The McMullin opinion highlights the importance of strict compliance with CCIOA to preserve common areas in a development, ensure the ability to fund maintenance of such areas, and avoid future litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Neil McConomy, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. McConomy may be contacted at nmcconomy@swlaw.com

    Washington State May Allow Common Negligence Claims against Construction Professionals

    November 20, 2013 —
    Lane Powell, a law firm with offices in Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and London has issued a construction law update on a recent decision of the Washington Supreme Court. The case involved a development firm that sued its engineering firm. The developer had gained preliminary approval to develop two short plats, and after the approvals expired, sought the assistance of the engineering firm in regaining approval. Eventually, the developer lost the plats to foreclosure and sued the engineering firm. The Washington Supreme Court rejected most of the developer’s claims in the case, but sent the negligence claims back to the trial court. The Lane Powell construction law update notes that “the record didn’t adequately establish the scope of the professional obligations incorporated into the contract, the court refused to determine if any of the engineer’s duties to the plaintiffs arose independently of the contract.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of