BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimony
    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


    Maryland Finally set to Diagnose an Allocation Method for Progressive Injuries

    Insurance Alert: Insurer Delay Extends Time to Repair or Replace Damaged Property

    Jason Feld Awarded Volunteer of the Year by Claims & Litigation Management Alliance

    Residential Interior Decorator Was Entitled to Lien and Was Not Engaging in Unlicensed Contracting

    Lawsuit Gives Teeth to Massachusetts Pay Law

    New OSHA Rule Creates Electronic Reporting Requirement

    U.S. Building Permits Soared to Their Highest Level in Nearly Eight Years

    Pennsylvania Sues Firms to Recoup Harrisburg Incinerator Losses

    Fall 2024 Legislative Update:

    Elon Musk's Boring Co. Is Feuding With Texas Over a Driveway

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

    LaGuardia Airport Is a Mess. An Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager Has a Fix

    Congratulations 2016 DE, NJ, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    New Plan Submitted for Explosive Demolition of Old Tappan Zee Bridge

    New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice

    Expert Excluded After Never Viewing Damaged Property

    2015-2016 California Labor & Employment Laws Affecting Construction Industry

    California Governor Signs SB 496 Amending California’s Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Benefit of the Coblentz Agreement and Consent Judgment

    Waive It Goodbye: Despite Evidence to the Contrary, Delaware Upholds an AIA Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    Steel Component Plant Linked to West Virginia Governor Signs $1M Pollution Pact

    Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    Texas Legislative Update

    District Court of Missouri Limits Whining About the Scope of Waiver of Subrogation Clauses in Wine Storage Agreements

    Colorado’s Abbreviated Legislative Session Offers Builders a Reprieve

    Is Construction Defect Notice under Florida Repair Statute a Suit?

    Federal District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Implementation of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Final Rule

    Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

    The Biggest Thing Keeping Young Homebuyers out of the Market Isn't Student Debt

    "Abrupt Falling Down of Building or Part of Building" as Definition of Collapse Found Ambiguous

    Miorelli Doctrine’s Sovereign Immunity in Public Construction Contracts — Not the Be-All and End-All

    Construction Project Bankruptcy Law

    Arbitration is Waivable (Even If You Don’t Mean To)

    Five Keys to Driving Digital Transformation in Engineering and Construction

    Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Newmeyer & Dillion Gets Top-Tier Practice Area Rankings on U.S. News – Best Lawyers List

    Corporate Transparency Act’s Impact on Real Estate: Reporting Companies, Exemptions and Beneficial Ownership Reporting (webinar)

    Skanska Will Work With Florida on Barge-Caused Damage to Pensacola Bay Bridge

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it)

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

    Give Way or Yield? The Jurisdiction of Your Contract Does Matter! (Law note)

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Insurer Must Pay for Matching Siding of Insured's Buildings

    Florida Passes Tort Reform Bill

    Playing Hot Potato: Indemnity Strikes Again

    Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment
    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

    Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

    October 22, 2013 —
    The State of Florida has frozen the assets of Nationwide Pools over claims of deceptive practices. Nationwide will be allowed to engage in pool construction during the lawsuit. The Florida Attorney General’s office alleges that Nationwide Pools failed to pay subcontractors, misrepresented warranties, and left customers with unfinished pools. The State of Florida is seeking restitution to consumers who did business with Nationwide Pools. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Deadly Fire in Older Hawaii High-Rise Causes Sprinkler Law Discussion

    July 19, 2017 —
    Last Friday, at least three people died and twelve were injured during a fire at a Honolulu high-rise that did not have sprinklers, according to CBS News. The fire began on the 26th floor and spread to at least the 28th floor and several units, the Honolulu Fire Department spokesman, Captain David Jenkins, stated. “Without a doubt if there were sprinklers in this apartment, the fire would be contained to the unit of origin,” Captain Jenkins concluded, as reported by CBS News. The Marco Polo development “was built four years before Honolulu required fire sprinkler systems in new residential high-rises,” the LA Times reported. “In 2005, the Honolulu City Council created a task force to estimate the cost of retrofitting and installing fire sprinkler systems in about 300 residential condominium buildings. A report estimated that retrofitting the Marco Polo would cost $4,305.55 for each unit.” A separate report estimated the cost would be $4.5 million to retrofit the entire building. According to Samuel Dannway, chief fire protection engineer for Coffman Engineers in Honoloulu, stated that the owners “lobbied strongly against any retrofitting” due to cost. Retrofitting sprinklers is more challenging in residential high-rises than office buildings, Glenn Corbett, associate professor of fire science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York told the LA Times. “Wall after wall, you have to penetrate with piping, and that means moving people around in apartments,” Corbett said. “They can’t live there while workers are drilling holes in their walls.” Mayor Kirk Caldwell stated that Honolulu “needs to look at passing a new law requiring sprinklers in older high-rises.” Read the full story, CBS News... Read the full story, LA Times... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

    April 15, 2015 —
    In Ong v. Fire Insurance Exchange (No. B252773, filed 4/3/15), a California appeals court ruled that a vacancy exclusion limited to damage caused by “vandalism or malicious mischief” did not bar coverage for damage to a vacant property caused by a warming fire purposely started by a transient that got out of control and spread to other parts of the property. In Ong, the insured’s rental premises had been vacated by tenants and the utilities turned off. Nearly two years later, the insured submitted a claim for fire damage that had just occurred. An investigator reported finding signs that a squatter had been living in the building, stating that: “[I]t appears the fire may have been initiated as the result of an uncontrolled warming fire started by an unauthorized inhabitant.” The investigator found firewood and a mattress, and concluded that holes burned in the floor were the result of the squatter attempting to throw burning wood out the door when the fire got out of control. The policy excluded vandalism as follows: “We do not cover direct or indirect loss from: . . . 4. Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days . . . just before the loss. A dwelling under construction is not considered vacant.” The term “Vandalism” was not defined in the policy. The insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion, stating: “Our investigation indicates that this loss was the result of vandalism. A trespasser entered the vacant dwelling and intentionally set a fire on the kitchen floor.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick and Colin T. Murphy Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How BIM Helps Make Buildings Safer

    July 01, 2019 —
    There are many uses for building information models that are yet to be discovered. One Finnish team collaborated with a city and fire & rescue authority to explore how BIM would help make buildings safer. “Imagine a fire inspector in a building with an AR headset. He can retrieve data from the building’s digital model and hence get an x-ray view of the pipes and cables behind the lowered ceiling.” That’s a scenario that Timo Lehtoviita pictured when we discussed the experimentation project which he led at Saimia, Saimaa University of Applied Sciences. Saimia, the city of Lappeenranta and their real estate company LATO, and the Rescue Department of South Karelia partnered in 2018 to explore the possibilities of using BIM to make buildings safer. The project, titled “Enhancing building safety using information models,” formed part of the national KIRA-digi built environment digitalization program. 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

    The Reptile Theory in Practice

    September 06, 2021 —
    The “Reptile Theory” is a trial strategy that attempts to use fear and anger to make the jury dislike the defendant so strongly they will award a plaintiff a grossly excessive amount of damages. The plaintiff’s attorney will seek to activate the jurors’ “survival mode” instincts by presenting the defendant’s conduct as highly dangerous and worthy of punishment. The defendant’s conduct will be portrayed as a threat to the safety of the general public, and the award as a deterrent needed to protect the community at large. The Reptile Theory appeals to the jurors’ emotions in place of any rational, impartial evaluation of the evidence. The term “Reptile Theory” originated in the writings of nuero-physiologist Paul D. MacLean in the 1950s, who suggested that one major part of the brain consisted of a “reptilian complex” that controlled instinctive behaviors involved in aggression, dominance, and territoriality. Then in the 2009 publication “Manual of the Plaintiff’s Revolution” by David Ball and Don Keenan, the authors first described the “Reptile Theory” in the context of litigation. Since then it has become a hot topic in litigation as defense counsel develop methods to combat “Reptile” tactics resulting in runaway jury awards. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas P. Hurzeler, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Hurzeler may be contacted at Nicholas.Hurzeler@lewisbrisbois.com

    Providing “Labor” Under the Miller Act

    January 28, 2019 —
    A recent opinion out of the Northern District of California discusses the “labor” required to support a Miller Act payment bond claim on a federal construction project. It is a good case that discusses the type of labor required to support a Miller Act payment bond claim. In Prime Mechanical Service, Inc. v. Federal Solutions Group, Inc., 2018 WL 619930 (N.D.Cal. 2018), a prime contractor was awarded a contract to design and install a new HVAC system. The prime contractor subcontracted the work to a mechanical contractor. The mechanical contractor with its sub-designer prepared and submitted a new HVAC design to the prime contractor and provided 4-5 onsite services to determine the location and layout for the new HVAC equipment, perform field measurements, obtain security passes, and plan site access and crane locations. The mechanical contractor submitted an invoice to the prime contractor and the invoice remained unpaid for more than 90 days, which the prime contractor refused to pay. The mechanical contractor than filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Is Construction in Arizona Back to Normal?

    September 10, 2014 —
    The Phoenix Metro area is finally pulling out of the Great Recession of 2008. Potential homebuyers are frantically looking to buy a home before interest rates rise and prices continue their ascent to normalcy. For the last several months, residential construction builders have continued to buy more land around the Valley of the Sun for new subdivisions, especially in North Phoenix and the East Valley. In fact, from January through May of 2013, in the Phoenix Metro area alone, 86 new communities have come to fruition—more than all of 2012. Nationally, single-family housing starts reached 667,000 in December 2013 according to the National Association of Home Builders tracking of single-family home starts, which is comparable to 1985 levels. It has been well documented that since the conclusion of World War II, Arizona’s population growth fostered new home construction at a rapid, almost unmatched pace. At the 2006 construction peak, Arizona’s residential construction output climbed to 64,000, more than double the average 20,000 to 30,000 new homes that are typically constructed annually. Building rates have not come close to the 2006 numbers, but new home starts increased 70 percent since 2012. So after six years after the real estate bubble popped, is the construction industry in Arizona finally back to normal? It depends on your definition of “normal.” In 2009, foreclosures reached alarming proportions. However, in 2010, the engine of Arizona’s population growth, the Phoenix Metro area, began to grow again. Since 2010, Maricopa County had added 125,000 residents. There is strong demand for new housing, and appreciating housing prices has let the construction industry get back on its feet. In residential construction, supply is tight, and all cash offers are common. We all know that Wall Street played a huge role in creating the housing bubble, and eventual bust, by facilitating the use of risky, sub-prime mortgages and turning them into securities that were sold to investors, pension-funds, and the like. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Buck Stops Over There: Have Indemnitors Become the Insurers of First and Last Resort?

    September 17, 2015 —
    Insurance and indemnity are the primary risk management strategies on construction projects. Insurance, such as commercial general liability insurance, insures against third party claims for bodily injury and property damage, and in the case of builder’s risk insurance, insures against first party claims during construction. Indemnity, on the other hand, shifts liability from one party to another and can be broader than the types of claims covered by insurance although anti-indemnity statutes can limit the breadth of those claims. Sometimes though insurance and indemnity work in ways you might never have expected, like in the next case, Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc., Case No. G049060 (July 2, 2015), in which the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District held a subcontractor liable in the face of both an indemnity claim brought by a general contractor as well as a subrogation claim brought by the general contractor’s insurance company. 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