BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance 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


    New York Appellate Court Restores Insurer’s Right to Seek Pro Rata Allocation of Settlements Between Insured and Uninsured Periods

    Be Careful When Requiring Fitness for Duty Examinations

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Celebrates 21-Year Success Story

    Berger: FIGG Is Slow To Hand Over All Bridge Collapse Data

    The Jersey Shore gets Beach Prisms Designed to Reduce Erosion

    Preparing For and Avoiding Residential Construction Disputes: For Homeowners and Contractors

    Florida trigger

    #6 CDJ Topic: Construction Defect Legislative Developments

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

    Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix

    20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!

    HOA Coalition Statement on Construction-Defects Transparency Legislation

    Determining Occurrence for Injury Under Commercial General Liability Policy Without Applying “Trigger Theory”

    Best Practices After Receiving Notice of a Construction Claim

    ISO Proposes New Designated Premises Endorsement in Response to Hawaii Decision

    BWB&O Partner Tyler Offenhauser and Associate Lizbeth Lopez Won Their Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the Privette Doctrine

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

    Patrick Haggerty Promoted to Counsel

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    Trump Sues Casinos to Get Conditions Fixed or Name Off

    Changes to the Federal Rules – 2024

    Perrin Construction Defect Claims & Trial Conference

    Shifting the Risk of Delay by Having Float Go Your Way

    Negligence Against a Construction Manager Agent

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    When a Construction Lender Steps into the Shoes of the Developer, the Door is Open for Claims by the General Contractor

    How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

    Word of the Day: “Contractor”

    Ten Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the Best Lawyers in America© 2019

    Corps Proposes $4.6B Plan to Steel Miami for Storm Surge

    A Year-End Review of the Environmental Regulatory Landscape

    Economic Waste Doctrine and Construction Defects / Nonconforming Work

    West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar Returns to Anaheim May 15th & 16th

    Without Reservations: Fourth Circuit Affirms That Vague Reservation of Rights Waived Insurers’ Coverage Arguments

    Washington State Updates the Contractor Registration Statute

    Ritzy NYC Tower Developer Says Residents’ Lawsuit ‘Ill-Advised’

    OSHA Reinforces COVID Guidelines for the Workplace

    NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

    Dorian Lashes East Canada, Then Weakens Heading Out to Sea

    Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

    Millennium’s Englander Buys $71.3 Million Manhattan Co-Op

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Partner Lawrence J. Bracken II Awarded Emory Public Interest Committee’s 2024 Lifetime Commitment to Public Service Award

    Construction Down in Twin Cities Area

    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract is Only as Good as Those Signing It

    Missouri Legislature Passes Bill to Drastically Change Missouri’s “Consent Judgment” Statute

    Kansas City Airport Terminal Project Faces Delays, Rising Costs

    Recording a Lis Pendens Is Crucial

    Axa Unveils Plans to Transform ‘Stump’ Into London Skyscraper

    Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works 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. 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

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    January 27, 2020 —
    Construction contracts often include a “no damage for delay” clause that denies a contractor the right to recover delay-related costs and limits the contractor’s remedy to an extension of time for noncontractor-caused delays to a project’s completion date. Depending on the nature of the delay and the jurisdiction where the project is located, the contractual prohibition against delay damages may well be enforceable. This article will explore whether an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause is also a bar to recovery of “acceleration” damages, i.e., the costs incurred by the contractor in its attempt to overcome delays to the project’s completion date. Courts are split as to whether damages for a contractor’s “acceleration” efforts are distinguishable from “delay” damages such that they may be recovered under an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause. See, e.g., Siefford v. Hous. Auth. of Humboldt, 223 N.W.2d 816 (Neb. 1974) (disallowing the recovery of acceleration damages under a no-damage-for-delay clause); but see Watson Elec. Constr. Co. v. Winston-Salem, 109 N.C. App. 194 (1993) (allowing the recovery of acceleration damages despite a no-damage-for-delay clause). The scope and effect of a no-damage-for-delay clause depend on the specific laws of the jurisdiction and the factual circumstances involved. There are a few ways for a contractor to circumvent an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause to recover acceleration damages. First, the contractor may invoke one of the state’s enumerated exceptions to the enforceability of the clause. It is helpful to keep in mind that most jurisdictions strictly construe a no-damage-for-delay clause to limit its application. This means that, regardless of delay or acceleration, courts will nonetheless permit the contractor to recover damages if the delay is, for example, of a kind not contemplated by the parties, due to an unreasonable delay, or a result of the owner’s fraud, bad faith, gross negligence, active interference or abandonment of the contract. See Tricon Kent Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 186 P.3d 155, 160 (Colo. App. 2008); United States Steel Corp. v. Mo. P. R. Co., 668 F.2d 435, 438 (8th Cir. 1982); Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. Iowa S. Utils. Co., 355 F. Supp. 376, 396 (S.D. Iowa 1973). Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Christine Z. Fan, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at gropmant@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    East Coast Evaluates Damage After Fast-Moving 'Bomb Cyclone'

    March 06, 2022 —
    Coastal areas in the northeast US are assessing damage from a fast-moving “bomb cyclone” that caused temperatures to plummet, triggered heavy flooding and high winds, and dumped 2 ft of snow in some New England areas. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Court of Appeals of Texas has ruled in the case of Barzoukas v. Foundation Design. Mr. Barzoukas contracted with Heights Development to build a house. He subsequently sued Heights Developments and “numerous other defendants who participated in the construction of his house.” Barzoukas eventually settled with all but two defendants, one who went bankrupt and Foundation Design, the defendant in this case. In the earlier phase, Barzoukas made claims of “negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, and exemplary damages in connection with the foundation.”

    Foundation Design had been hired to install 15-foot piers to support the foundation. The engineer of record, Larry Smith, sent a letter to Heights Development noting that they had encountered hard clay stone when drilling. Smith changed the specifications to 12-foot piers. Initially, the City of Houston called a halt to work on the home when an inspector concluded that the piers were too shallow. Heights Development later convinced the city to allow work to continue. Subsequently, experts concluded that the piers were too shallow.

    Foundation Design filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted this, “without specifying the basis for its ruling.” Barzoukas contends the court was in error. Foundation Design contends that “Barzoukas failed to proffer competent evidence establishing that their conduct proximately caused damages.” Further, they did not feel that Smith’s letter gave “rise to viable claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement.”

    One problem the court had was a lack of evidence. The court noted that “the purported subcontract is entirely missing” in the pleadings. The court has no contract between Bazourkas and Heights Development, nor one between Heights Development and either Foundation Design or Smith. The court underscored the importance of this, writing, “details matter.” They found that “the details are largely missing here.” Without the contract, the court found it impossible to determine if “Smith or an entity related to him agreed to indemnify Heights Development for damages arising from Smith’s negligent performance.”

    As the material facts are in dispute, the appeals court found that there were no grounds for a summary judgment in the case. “Pointing to the existence of a contract between Heights Development and Barzoukas, or to the existence of a subcontract, is the beginning of the analysis ? not the end.”

    Foundation Design and Smith also claimed that Barzoukas’s expert did not proffer competent evidence and that the expert’s opinions were conclusory. The trial court did not rule on these claims and the appeals court has rejected them.

    Finally, Barzoukas made a claim that the trial court should not have rejected his argument of fraud and fraudulent inducement. Here, however, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court. “Barzoukas did not present evidence supporting an inference that Smith or Foundation Design made a purposeful misrepresentation.

    The court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration. One member of the panel, Judge Charles Seymore, upheld the entire decision of the trial court. He dissented with the majority, finding that the economic loss rule foreclosed the claim of negligence.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Not a Waiver for All: Maryland Declines to Apply Subrogation Waiver to Subcontractors

    September 23, 2024 —
    In Lithko Contr., LLC v. XL Ins. Am. Inc., No. 31, Sept. Term, 2023, 2024 Md. LEXIS 256, the Supreme Court of Maryland considered whether a tenant who contracted for the construction of a large warehouse facility waived its insurer’s rights to subrogation against subcontractors when it agreed to waive subrogation against the general contractor. The court ultimately decided that the unambiguous language of the subrogation waiver in the development agreement between the parties did not extend to subcontractors. The court also held that the tenant’s requirement that subcontracts include a subrogation waiver did not, in this case, impose a project-wide waiver on all parties. The court, however, found that the requirement that the subcontracts include a similar, but not identical, waiver provision rendered the subcontract’s waiver clauses ambiguous and remanded the case to the lower court to determine if the parties to the development agreement – i.e., Duke Baltimore LLC (“Duke”) and Amazon.com.dedc, LLC (“Amazon”) – intended that the waiver clause in the subcontracts covered claims against subcontractors. This case involved roof and structural damage to a warehouse in Baltimore, Maryland that Duke owned. In March 2014, Amazon entered into a development agreement with Duke for the construction of the warehouse. Amazon also agreed to subsequently lease the warehouse from Duke. Although Amazon essentially owned and/or developed the project, the development agreement identified Duke as “Landlord” and Amazon as “Tenant.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    GRSM Team Wins Summary Judgment in Million-Dollar HOA Dispute

    December 17, 2024 —
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partner Bob Bragalone and Senior Counsel Ryan Fellman won a complete summary judgment on behalf of five board members who had been added to an HOA dispute by the defendant homeowners. The GRSM team resolved the matter within just 60 days of taking over the case, bringing an end to a legal battle that had lasted more than four years. The dispute began when the HOA, as plaintiff, filed suit against the homeowners in Denton County District Court. The HOA alleged that the homeowners had violated the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions by constructing a non-conforming carport and sought a declaratory judgment to resolve the issue. In response, the homeowners filed a counterclaim and third-party petition, adding the individual HOA board members to the lawsuit. They accused the board members—who were serving in a voluntary capacity—of mishandling the dispute and filed claims against them for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and gross negligence. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. Bragalone, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and B. Ryan Fellman, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Mr. Bragalone may be contacted at bbragalone@grsm.com Mr. Fellman may be contacted at rfellman@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Attempt to Overrule Trial Court's Order to Produce Underwriting Manual Fails

    April 25, 2022 —
    After being ordered by the trial court to produce its underwriting manual, the insurer's writ of certiorari to quash the order was denied by the Florida Court of Appeals. People's Trust Ins. Co. v. Foster, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 542 (Fla. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2022). The insured sued after his claim for damage caused by a water pipe in his home that leaked. In discovery, the insurer refused to produce its underwriting manual. Ruling on a motion to compel, the trial court ordered that the manual be produced. The insurer appealed. On appeal, the insurer argued its underwriting manual was categorically prohibited in breach of contract cases until and unless bad faith litigation commenced. Although courts had quashed the premature discovery of insurers' business practices, claims files, underwriting files, underwriting manuals, and the like in breach of contract actions, there was no categorical legal rule prohibiting discovery of underwriting manuals in breach of contract cases, especially if they were relevant. 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

    Increases in U.S. Office Rents Led by San Jose and Dallas

    October 01, 2014 —
    San Jose, California, and Dallas led the U.S. in office-rent increases in the third quarter as cities benefiting from growth in the technology and energy industries outperformed the gradual national recovery. Rents after any landlord discounts, known as effective rents, climbed 6.7 percent from a year earlier in San Jose, compared with the U.S. average increase of 2.6 percent, property researcher Reis Inc. (REIS) said. Dallas rents rose 5.2 percent, followed by San Francisco’s 5.1 percent gain, Houston’s 4.4 percent increase and New York’s 3.9 percent advance. The national sluggishness in the office market’s growth is being bucked by parts of Northern California and Texas, where large bases of technology or energy workers drive demand for space, Reis said. Throughout the U.S., increases in office occupancies show that the market “is in the midst of a recovery,” according to the New York-based company. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hui-yong Yu, Bloomberg
    Hui-yong Yu may be contacted at hyu@bloomberg.net

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    October 16, 2013 —
    The residents of Villa Lago at Renaissance Commons will be relieved of their problems with defective Chinese drywall, according to an announcement from their legal counsel, Whitfield Bryson & Mason. Gary E. Mason, a founding member of the firm, announced to homeowners that remediation would begin on November 1. “The project will start with about 30 units on the top floor and will continue floor by floor for the next 12 months.” Residents will be moved out of their units for about three months while all drywall is removed and replaced. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of