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


    NTSB Sheds Light on Fatal Baltimore Work Zone Crash

    No One to Go After for Construction Defects at Animal Shelter

    Sales of New Homes in U.S. Increased 5.4% in July to 507,000

    Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame

    Brown and Caldwell Appoints Stigers as Design Chief Engineer

    Brooklyn’s Hipster Economy Challenges Manhattan Supremacy

    Survey Finds Tough Labor Market Top-of-mind for Busy Georgia Contractors

    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    Stay of Coverage Case Appropriate While Court Determines Arbitrability of Dispute

    Local Government’s Claims on Developer Bonds Dismissed for Failure to Pursue Administrative Remedies

    Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks: The Spearin Doctrine and Design-Build Projects

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    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

    Late Notice Kills Insured's Claim for Damage Due to Hurricane

    Athens, Ohio, Sues to Recover Nearly $722,000 After Cyber Attack

    FBI Makes Arrest Related to Saipan Casino Construction

    ASCE Statement on Passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2022

    Assignment of Insured's Policy Ineffective

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 5% in Year to June

    Flag on the Play! Expired Contractor’s License!

    California Superior Court Overrules Insurer's Demurrer on COVID-19 Claim

    Suffolk Construction Drywall Suits Involve Claim for $3 Million in Court Costs

    68 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 5th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

    Harmon Tower Construction Defects Update: Who’s To Blame?

    Collaborating or Competing with Construction Tech Startups

    Engineering, Architecture, and Modern Technology – An Interview with Dr. Jakob Strømann-Andersen

    Insured's Collapse Claim Survives Summary Judgment

    Contractors: Beware the Subordination Clause

    A Relatively Small Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

    A Trivial Case

    Insolvency of Primary Carrier Does Not Invoke Excess Coverage

    From the Ground Up

    The Contractor’s Contingency: What Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know and Be Wary Of

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy

    DOD Contractors Receive Reprieve on Implementation of Chinese Telecommunications Ban

    Tips for Contractors Who Want to Help Rebuild After the California Wildfires

    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named a Best Law Firm in 2019 in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    Another TV Fried as Georgia Leads U.S. in Lightning Costs

    Homebuilding Design Goes 3D

    Window Manufacturer Weathers Recession by Diversifying

    Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

    Construction Spending Drops in March

    Mass. Gas Leak Follows NTSB Final Report, Call for Reforms

    Proposed Law Protecting Tenants Amended: AB 828 Updated

    Stormy Seas Ahead: 5th Circuit to Review Whether Maritime Law Applies to Offshore Service Contract

    Home Prices Beat Estimates With 0.8% Gain in November

    NY State Appellate Court Holds That Pollution Exclusions Bar Duty to Defend Under Liability Policies for Claims Alleging Exposure to PFAS

    Residential Mortgage Lenders and Servicers Beware of Changes to Rule 3002.1

    Mendocino Hospital Nearing Completion
    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

    COVID-19 Information and Resources

    May 04, 2020 —
    INTRODUCTION The current COVID-19 health crisis has greatly impacted nearly every aspect of our business and personal lives. The constant flow of rapidly evolving, and often contradictory information creates its own challenges for those who are responsible for ensuring compliance with relevant regulations and best practices while still moving forward with their business and family activities. This bulletin differs from most Chapman, Glucksman, Dean & Roeb bulletins in that it does not highlight a recent case, statute or a single development, but rather acts as a resource and “links” to provide you with needed information and to simplify your search for critical information during this unusual and challenging time. CIVIL LITIGATION: CLOSURES AND RESTRICTIONS The State and Federal Court systems in California have drastically reduced their operations. The Governor issued Executive Order N-38-20, this suspends certain limitations on the Chief Justice’s authority, making it possible for orders to be issued adapting the Court’s operations to address the COVID-19 health crisis. As of this time, the most recent statewide order from the Chief Justice is the March 30, 2020 Order which allows Courts to utilize remote technology when possible. The March 30, 2020 Order also clarifies a prior Order suspending all trials for 60 days. As many of you are aware, civil trials in California must commence within five years of the initiation of the action, this is commonly referred to as the “five year rule”. While the five year time period was initially extended by the Chief Justice for 60 days, the Judicial Council subsequently adopted a series of Emergency Rules, including one which extends this to six months for all civil actions filed on or before April 6, 2020. The Judicial Council also adopted rules tolling the statutes of limitation for civil causes of action are tolled from April 6, 2020 to 90 days after the state of emergency has ended. In addition to the statewide orders and rules, counties have enacted their own rules. Los Angeles Superior Court, for instance, has closed some locations while others remain open on a limited basis. On March 17, 2020 an Order was issued limiting the Court to “essential functions” through April 16, 2020. However, on April 15, 2020, a further Order extended the closure through May 12, 2020. While truly urgent Ex Partes may go forward, all regularly set hearings will be continued until after June 22, 2020. Trials will begin after June 22, 2020 with non-priority trials anticipated to start in later August or September. Notably, any deadlines imposed by current trial or hearing dates still stand until the specific dates are continued. As with other aspects of the COVID-19 health crisis, the impact upon Civil Litigation continues to evolve, for the most up to date information we include the following links to the California Courts. The first page includes links to all the State and County Orders, the second page is for the Judicial Council Rules. Links: https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/court-emergency-orders-6794321 https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-branch-emergency-actions-criminal-civil-and-juvenile-justice STATE AND LOCAL STAY AT HOME ORDERS The State of California declared a state of emergency on March 4, 2020. On March 13, 2020 the President declared a national state of emergency. On March 19, 2020 Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20, also known as the “Stay at Home” order. This orders all Californian’s to stay at home, unless they are part of an essential businesses are exempt which generally includes construction and insurance. Generally, Californians are allowed to run essential errands, but they are not to congregate with those outside of their household. In addition to the State, many cities and counties have enacted additional orders regarding whether certain types of businesses can remain open, use of parks, trails and other public amenities as well as what type of protective measures must be adhered to such as covering your face in public. As with Civil Litigation, the State and Local Government regulations continue to evolve. A link to the State’s COVID-19 page is below and we also encourage you to check your local City and County sites for additional information. https://covid19.ca.gov/ BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL GUIDELINES The impact of COVID-19 is unprecedented. While “essential businesses” may remain open for customers, steps must be taken to protect the health of both employees and customers. There are both State and, in many instances, Local Government regulations addressing these precautions. In addition to taking safety measures to protect the health of all involved, there are a multitude of financial concerns to be addressed. While most people have already heard about the moratorium on residential and commercial evictions, this does little to address how property owners will receive funds to pay their financial obligations, how tenants can pay their other obligations, how either can make payroll and most importantly, how employees who can no longer work due to their “non-essential” business being closed can put food on their tables. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES” act) may provide financial relief for many business by means of loans, some of which may be forgivable, and tax credits. The CARES act also modifies the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to provide paid leave for those who cannot work due to COVID-19 as well as other benefits. The IRS has extended the deadline to file and pay taxes to July 15, 2020. Additionally, there are other Federal and State benefits which may be available for those whose jobs are impacted. The financial impacts of COVID-19 are far reaching and continue to evolve. The Department of Insurance ordered insurance companies to return premiums for at least the months of March and April. This applies to certain lines of insurance where the risk of loss has fallen substantially. However, business interruption, environmental and pollution claims have increased exponentially. While most such policies require some physical damage in order to trigger an occurrence, there has been some discussion of legislation deeming the COVID-19 pandemic to fulfill the physical damage requirement. If your business has been closed or impacted by COVID-19 we encourage you to review your insurance policies and key contracts to ascertain what your rights and obligations are as well as whether you may have any coverage for your losses. Just as importantly, speak with your business partners including vendors, customers and employees to ascertain their capabilities and willingness to work through this crisis. US Department of Labor OSHA Guidelines: https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/ California Labor & Workforce Development Agency Resource Page: https://www.labor.ca.gov/coronavirus2019/ California Employment Development Department: https://www.edd.ca.gov/about_edd/coronavirus-2019.htm CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES Many of our clients are involved in the construction industry. Construction has been deemed an essential activity and is exempt from many of the “stay at home” orders but certain protections and regulations still apply. In addition to the general workplace guidelines discussed above certain jurisdictions are providing guidance as to how to provide a safe construction site workplace. We have included a link the Los Angeles Department Building and Safety guidelines below. However, in some instances work on a project may be delayed or may not be able to progress due to the project owner stopping work or the inability of subcontractors or suppliers to continue as originally intended. In this case one should review their contracts to see what justifies delay and inability to perform by either party and the impact thereof. Contracts should also be evaluated to ascertain whether the costs associated with compliance with the new COVID-19 regulations are a recoverable cost under the contract. As with the general business discussion above, contractors should review all available insurance, including builder’s risk to ascertain the existence of possible coverage. LA DBS guidelines: https://ladbs.org/docs/default-source/publications/misc-publications/construction-site-guidance.pdf SUMMARY The COVID-19 health crisis has had and, for the foreseeable future, will have a broad and severe impact on our society. The variety of evolving regulations on the Federal, State and Local Government levels make it challenging to comply, especially for businesses in operation. There are also a variety of resources available to help ensure compliance with these regulations as well as the financial and physical viability of our communities’ companies and employees. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need any assistance in navigating these rules and resources. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb and Brian D. Kahn, Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrlaw.com Mr. Kahn may be contacted at bkahn@cgdrlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    China Bans Tallest Skyscrapers Following Safety Concerns

    July 25, 2021 —
    China is prohibiting construction of the tallest skyscrapers to ensure safety following mounting concerns over the quality of some projects. The outright ban covers buildings that are taller than 500 meters (1,640 feet), the National Development and Reform Commission said in a notice Tuesday. Local authorities will also need to strictly limit building of towers that are more than 250 meters tall. The top economic planner cited quality problems and safety hazards in some developments stemming from loose oversight. A 72-story tower in Shenzhen was closed in May for checks following reports of unexplained wobbling, feeding concern about the stability of one of the technology hub’s tallest buildings. Construction of buildings exceeding 100 meters should strictly match the scale of the city where they will be located, along with its fire rescue capability, the commission said. “It’s primarily for safety,” said Qiao Shitong, an associate law professor at the University of Hong Kong who studies property and urban law. Extremely tall buildings “are more like signature projects for mayors and not necessarily efficient.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims

    January 04, 2023 —
    On December 16, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 2022 N.C. LEXIS 1122 (Dec. 16, 2022), in which it addressed coverage issues arising out of claims by individuals alleging injury from exposure to benzene contained in the insured’s products. Affirming in part and reversing in part the intermediate appellate court’s decision, the court held: (1) an “exposure trigger” applied; (2) defense and indemnity costs were subject to pro-rata allocation; and (3) vertical exhaustion applied to the duty to defend under certain umbrella policies. Two justices concurred in part and dissented in part. I. Background In Radiator Specialty, the insured (RSC) was named in hundreds of underlying suits arising from individual plaintiffs’ alleged exposure to benzene contained in its products. Between 1971 and 2012, RSC was insured under primary, umbrella and excess liability policies issued by various insurers. In 2013, RSC sued the insurers in North Carolina state court, seeking coverage for approximately $45 million in defense and indemnity costs incurred for the underlying claims. In 2016, the trial court decided motions for summary judgment on a number of coverage issues. Following a bench trial in 2018, the trial court entered final judgment, which required the insurers to reimburse $1.8 million of RSC’s past costs. The rulings were appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which issued a decision in 2020. In 2021, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted RSC’s and certain insurers’ petitions for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Basement Foundation Systems’ Getting an Overhaul

    October 22, 2014 —
    Builder reported that “[a] new game-changing system, recently recognized for its energy-efficient composite approach to basement construction, soon could change how American builders construct foundations.” Epitome composite foundation walls from Composite Panel Systems (CPS) “was awarded the Composites and Advanced Materials Exposition’s Unsurpassed Innovation Award in Orlando, Fla., on Oct. 14.” The system “combines integrated stud cavities for mechanicals, insulation, the top plate, and a vapor barrier in a single step.” It has been approved for use in Wisconsin, and is expected to receive International Building code and International Residential Code compliance later this year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Denies Insured's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Seeking to Compel Appraisal

    March 13, 2023 —
    The court denied the insured's motion to dismiss after the insurer filed suit to compel an appraisal. Allied Trust Ins. Co. v. Tsang, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 352 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2023). The insureds reported damage to their property arising from Hurricane Ida. The insurer, Allied Trust, investigated and determined that the covered damage was $1,978.18, which was less that the policy's deductible. The insureds estimated that the covered damage was $135,270.78. Allied Trust invoked the appraisal provision. Allied Trust later filed suit alleging the insureds failed to comply and participate in the appraisal. The insureds moved to dismiss the complaint as moot. In their motion, the insureds argued that because they were now complying with the appraisal clause, all relief sought by Allied Trust had either already occurred or was currently underway. 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

    Guilty Pleas Draw Renewed Interest In Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws

    December 09, 2011 —

    A report this week by David McGrath Schwarz of the Las Vegas Sun suggests that Nevada’s construction defect laws will be a point of much contention in upcoming legislative sessions. The report cites renewed interest in the state’s construction defect laws due to ongoing federal investigations of construction defect attorney Nancy Quon and construction company owner Leon Benzer. Guilty pleas have been entered by at least ten individuals including an attorney, property managers, straw purchasers, and former HOA board members.

    The article suggests that Nevada’s Chapter 40 laws are easily manipulated to the detriment of Nevada’s homebuilding industry. Construction industry lobbyists have tried unsuccessfully to change the laws in past legislative sessions.

    The Sun’s article speculates that the building industry might be able to gain legislative concessions due to the volume of guilty pleas and what it refers to as examples of Chapter 40 abuses. ”With federal authorities collecting guilty pleas, the construction industry has prime examples of the system being abused, and how lucrative it can be for attorneys.”

    Read the full story…

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

    When is a Residential Subcontractor not Subject to the VCPA? Read to Find Out

    December 01, 2017 —
    The Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) can and often does apply to residential construction. The transaction between a residential contractor and an homeowner has been held to fall under the consumer transaction language of the VCPA and on occasion been used to avoid the issues with the economic loss doctrine in Virginia. However, there are limits to how far down the contractual chain the VCPA applies, particularly in the case where a supplier or subcontractor does not provide the services or materials for a personal, consumer purpose. An example of this fact is found in the case of Johnston v. Stephan. In that case, a couple hired a general contractor to build a home and the general contractor hired Cole Roofing System, Inc. to provide the roof of the home. The first couple subsequently sold the home and the second homeowners sought further work on the roof from Cole Roofing. After Cole Roofing refused further work, the homeowners brought an action seeking to enforce a warranty and for a violation of the VCPA. For the warranty claim, the homeowners relied on the contract between them and the prior homeowners that referenced a 10 year warranty on the roof and the subcontract between the homebuilder and Cole Roofing. Cole Roofing sought dismissal of the VCPA and warranty claims by demurrer and further sought by demurrer to have the matter dismissed as being filed after the running of the statute of limitations. 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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Obtain Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Policy Conditions

    June 12, 2023 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis obtained summary judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida. The underlying claim involved a water loss in the kitchen of the Plaintiff’s property allegedly resulting in substantial damage to the home necessitating renovations throughout the residence. The claim was reported seventeen days after the reported date of loss by Plaintiff’s counsel. The Plaintiff had retained counsel and two vendors before giving notice to the insurer. In addition, the insurer’s field adjuster was not provided the opportunity to inspect the plumbing materials which had been allegedly damaged. Specifically, the bottom panel of the sink kitchen cabinet box had been removed. The insurer retained an engineer, who concluded that the removal of the damaged property hindered the ability of the engineer to determine their conditions prior to removal or whether exposure from waste arm leakage occurred. It was later learned that the damaged plumbing fixtures and the bottom of the cabinets had been thrown out by the contractors, which all happened before the claim was reported to the insurer. The insured also failed to provide a signed, sworn proof of loss within sixty days after the loss. Reprinted courtesy of Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman and Steven A. Hollis, Traub Lieberman Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Mr. Hollis may be contacted at shollis@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of