BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering 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


    Inside the Old Psych Hospital Reborn As a Home for Money Managers

    Erasing Any Doubt: Arizona FED Actions Do Not Accrue Until Formal Demand for Possession is Tendered

    New California Employment Laws Affect the Construction Industry for 2019

    The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

    The Right to Repair Act (Civ.C §895 et seq.) Applies and is the Exclusive Remedy for a Homeowner Alleging Construction Defects

    Bill Proposes First-Ever Federal Workforce Housing Tax Credit for Middle-Class Housing

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    U.S. Construction Spending Rose in 2017 by Least in Six Years

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    Court of Appeal: Privette Doctrine Does Not Apply to Landlord-Tenant Relationships

    Dorian Lashes East Canada, Then Weakens Heading Out to Sea

    False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Faulty Workmanship Claim

    Proving & Defending Lost Profit Damages

    Appeals Court Rules that Vertical and Not Horizontal Exhaustion Applies to Primary and First-Layer Excess Insurance

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    NTSB Cites Design Errors in Fatal Bridge Collapse

    Hurricane Milton Barrels Toward Florida With 180 MPH Winds

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Sudden Death”

    Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

    Know What’s Under Ground and Make Smarter Planning Decisions

    Harlem Developers Reach Deal with Attorney General

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (08/10/22)

    Occurrence Found, Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Bar Coverage for Construction Defects

    General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

    Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess

    New Tariffs Could Shorten Construction Expansion Cycle

    What’s the Best Way to “Use” a Construction Attorney?

    Texas Supreme Court Holds that Invoking Appraisal Provision and Paying Appraisal Amount Does Not Insulate an Insurer from Damages Under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act

    When Is Mandatory Arbitration Not Mandatory?

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

    A Trivial Case

    Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

    Fannie-Freddie Propose Liquidity Rules for Mortgage Insurers

    Amid the Chaos, Trump Signs Executive Order Streamlining Environmental Permitting and Disbands Infrastructure Council

    ASCE Statement on Biden Administration Permitting Action Plan

    The California Privacy Rights Act Passed – Now What?

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Insurance Attorney, Latosha M. Ellis, Honored by Business Insurance Magazine

    Don’t Be Lazy with Your Tenders

    New York's Highest Court Says Asbestos Causation Requires Evidence Of Sufficient Exposure To Sustain Liability

    Domtar Update

    Justice Didn’t Ensure Mortgage Fraud Was Priority, IG Says

    California Contractors – You Should Know That Section 7141.5 May Be Your Golden Ticket

    3D Printing Innovations Enhance Building Safety

    EEOC Chair Issues New Report “Building for the Future: Advancing Equal Employment Opportunity in the Construction Industry”

    Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered
    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. Drawing 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

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    July 20, 2011 —

    The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.

    The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.

    Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.

    After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.

    The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”

    Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”

    The court concluded:

    Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    ‘Hallelujah,’ House Finally Approves $1T Infrastructure Funding Package

    November 15, 2021 —
    After nearly three months in a holding pattern and a long day of back-and-forth negotiations among House Democrats, the chamber approved a sweeping, multi-year infrastructure funding package late on Nov. 5 that will provide an estimated $1 trillion for a wide range of infrastructure categories, including highways, transit, rail, water, power and broadband. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    November 07, 2012 —
    The Supreme Court of Oregon has concluded in an en banc decision that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment is not a motion for a new trial. In coming to their conclusion the court overturned an earlier Oregon Supreme Court case, Carter v. U.S. National Bank. Although the decision does not bear on construction defects, the underlying case did. Due to the decision, these claims can now be evaluated in a trial. The case, Association of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren, came about after an apartment complex was converted into condominium units. The developers hired Big Al’s Construction for some of the remodeling work. The condominium association later sued the developer and the contractor over claims of construction defects. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. But that wasn’t the end of things. The plaintiff soon filed a “motion to reconsider,” noting that the summary judgment seemed to be in conflict with both law and other recent rulings, and additionally, the grounds for the decision were not in the order. The judge then notified the parties that the court had “pulled the trigger too quickly” and had seven questions for the parties to answer. The court dismissed all claims against the defendants. The defendants filed their responses, objecting that that “‘there is no such thing’ as a motion for reconsideration.” Further, while “the rules do allow for post-judgment review of pre-judgment rulings through a motion for a new trial,” the plaintiffs had not filed for a new trial. But did they need one? They did file an appeal. The judge in the case admitted that there was no such thing as a motion to reconsider, and felt bad about prematurely signing the judgment. The case was sent to the Court of Appeals to determine if the motion to reconsider was a request for a new trial. The Court of Appeals concurred. In reviewing the decision, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that there were a maximum of three questions to address. Was the motion for reconsideration a motion for a new trial? If so, was the later notice of appeal premature? And if so, was the plaintiff required to file a new appeal? The court determined that the answer to the first question was no. Prior decisions pointed to the conclusion “that a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment amounts to a motion for a new trial,” but here the court concluded that “our prior cases erred,” and turned to the summary judgment rule for clarification. The court noted that “the rule contemplates that summary judgment and trial are separate and distinct events.” With this conclusion, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Lasso Needed to Complete Vegas Hotel Implosion

    February 18, 2015 —
    The Miami Herald reported that “demolition workers used an Old West method on Tuesday to finish an incomplete casino implosion in Las Vegas.” The Clarion Hotel and Casino owner Lorenzo Doumani told the Miami Herald that “[t]hey lassoed the building with steel cables, got a crane, and pulled and pulled and pulled.” Burke Construction used a 2-ton explosive punch to bring the structure down, however, the concrete building dropped four stories but remained upright. Burke Construction’s corporate safety coordinator, Anthony Schlect, told the Miami Herald that he was investigating the incident. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Treble Damages Awarded After Insurer Denies Coverage for Collapse

    July 03, 2022 —
    The Fourth Circuit upheld the district court's decision that a collapse was covered, but reversed the denial of treble damages to the insured. DENC, LLC v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10443 (4th Cir. April 18, 2022). The district court decision was summarized here. DENC owned The Crest, an apartment building leased to Elon University for student housing. Philadelphia Indemnity Company insured the property. In January 2018, students gathered on a second-floor breezeway for a party. Partygoers began jumping in the breezeway, which caused an abrupt collapse. Observers noticed that the breezeway was hanging down by more that a foot. DENC filed a claim with Philadelphia the next day. An adjuster was sent to inspect the breezeway. By that time, the city had condemned The Crest. The adjuster said that undiscovered "water damage which occurred over an extended period of time" caused the loss. 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

    Connecticut’s New False Claims Act Increases Risk to Public Construction Participants

    April 02, 2024 —
    After several decades, Governor Ned Lamont signed a bill into law, effective July 1, 2023, An Act Concerning Liability for False and Fraudulent Claims, Public Act No. 23-129, eliminating language that previously limited enforcement of Connecticut’s False Claims Act to claims relating to a state-administered health or human services program. The revisions dramatically expanded potential liability under the False Claims Act, allowing both private citizens and the Attorney General to bring actions under the Act in any context, including the construction industry. Consequently, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and design professionals on public construction projects in Connecticut must be familiar with this newly enacted law and take steps to reduce the risks of doing business on such projects. Reprinted courtesy of Fred Hedberg, Robinson & Cole LLP and William Stoll, Robinson & Cole LLP Mr. Hedberg may be contacted at fhedberg@rc.com Mr. Stoll may be contacted at wstoll@rc.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Home Builders Wear Many Hats

    May 10, 2013 —
    George McMahan, the president of the West Texas Home Builders Association, writes in the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal about what it takes to be a home builder. He notes that “a home builder guides dozens of skilled artisans and professionals,” and must “understand all of the home’s complex systems and know enough about each contractor’s trade in order to coordinate this skilled team to build and sell a quality product.” Additionally, home builders must “serve as liaisons with their communities and local government officials.” After the site is selected and homes are being built, “a home builder acts as an inspector.” McMahan notes that “a professional home builder will make certain the home meets both code and warranty guidelines long before and after the officials show up.” “Home builders,” he says, “are schedulers and record keepers.” They have to “tackle multiple tasks simultaneously in order to keep the construction process moving forward.” They “wear many, many hats,” so that they can “deliver a home where the new owners can hang their own hats, raise a family and build lifelong memories.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    What is the Effect of an Untimely Challenge to the Timeliness of a Trustee’s Sale?

    April 13, 2017 —
    Ever wonder what happens if a person challenges the timeliness of a trustee’s sale after the sale already occurred? Waiver of the argument of course! And, in the case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Waltner, the affirmance of an eviction judgment. In the Waltner case, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-PR4 Trust (the “Bank”), purchased a residential property at a trustee’s sale in September 2015. The Bank gave the occupant of the house, Sarah Waltner (“Waltner”), notice to vacate the property, but she did not do so. Accordingly, the Bank filed a summary action to evict Waltner, which the trial court ultimately granted. After the trial court granted the Bank relief, Waltner filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to vacate the eviction judgment arguing, among other things, that the judgment was void because the Bank conducted the trustee’s sale after the statute of limitations expired. Both motions were denied, and Waltner appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com