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


    Team Temporarily Stabilizes Delaware River Bridge Crack

    NYC’s Next Hot Neighborhoods Targeted With Property Funds

    Hudson River PCB Cleanup Lands Back in Court

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    Out of Eastern Europe, a Window Into the Post-Pandemic Office

    24/7 Wall Street Reported on Eight Housing Markets at All-Time Highs

    AI in Construction: What Does It Mean for Our Contractors?

    Documentation Important for Defending Construction Defect Claims

    You Are Not A “Liar” Simply Because You Amend Your Complaint

    A Brief Primer on Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien When the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

    Court Extends Insurer Rights to Equitable Contribution

    Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative

    Firm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in Germany

    Avoiding Construction Defect “Nightmares” in Florida

    Third Circuit Follows Pennsylvania Law - Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship Does Not Arise from an Occurrence

    New California Construction Law for 2019

    California Storm Raises Mudslide Risk, Closes Interstate

    Companies Move to Houston Area and Spur Home Building

    D&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act Violations

    Court of Appeals Finds Additional Insured Coverage Despite “Care, Custody or Control” Exclusion

    Contract Disruptions: Navigating Supply Constraints and Labor Shortages

    Why Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Is a Green Jobs Plan

    Self-Storage Magnates Cash In on the Surge in Real Estate

    Reminder: The Devil is in the Mechanic’s Lien Details

    Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

    The COVID-19 Impact: Navigating the Legal Landscape’s New Normal

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

    How the Cumulative Impact Theory has been Defined

    Denial of Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens Does Not Automatically Create Basis for Certiorari Relief

    Loss Caused by Subcontractor's Faulty Work Covered in Georgia

    As Single-Family Homes Get Larger, Lots Get Smaller

    RDU Terminal 1: Going Green

    Associated Builders and Contractors Northern California Chapter Announces New President/CEO

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twelve White and Williams Lawyers

    2021 Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On [UPDATED]

    Implied Warranty Claims–Not Just a Seller’s Risk: Builders Beware!

    Equal Access to Justice Act Fee Request Rejected in Flood Case

    Updates to AIA Contract Applications

    Sarah P. Long Expands Insurance Coverage Team at Payne & Fears

    Capitol View-Corridor Restrictions Affect Massing of Austin’s Tallest Tower

    Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level

    “To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

    Failure to Timely File Suit in Federal Court for Flood Loss is Fatal

    Did Deutsche Make a Deal with the Wrong Homeowner?

    The Impact of the IIJA and Amended Buy American Act on the Construction Industry

    Phillips & Jordan Awarded $176M Everglades Restoration Contract

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

    Loan Snarl Punishes Spain Builder Backed by Soros, Gates

    Home-Rentals Wall Street Made Say Grow or Go: Real Estate
    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

    'There Was No Fighting This Fire,' California Survivor Says

    September 14, 2020 —
    Berry Creek, Calif. (AP) -- John Sykes built his life around his cabin in the dense woods of Northern California. He raised his two children there, expanded it and improved it over time and made it resilient to all kinds of disaster except fire. So when the winds started howling Tuesday and the skies became so dark from smoke that he had to turn on his lights at midday, he didn’t hesitate to leave it all behind in an instant before any evacuation order. With the disaster two years ago in nearby Paradise, in which 85 people perished in the deadliest and most destructive fire in modern state history, still fresh on his mind, Sykes got his wife and a friend into his car and left with only a change of clothes each. “All I could do is look in the rear view mirror and see orange sky and a mushroom cloud and that told me it was hot and to keep going,” Sykes said Friday. “It was a terrifying feeling.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    NJ Court Reaffirms Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims and Finds Fraud Claims Inherently Intentional

    September 20, 2021 —
    Awarding summary judgment to an insurer under both liability and directors & officers (D&O) coverage parts, a New Jersey trial court reaffirmed the principle that claims of defective workmanship without resulting “property damage” are not covered under a general liability policy, and further dismissed claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, finding that such claims were inherently intentional and do not state a covered “occurrence.” In Velez v. AR Management Company, et al., 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1675 (Law Div. Bergen Co. Aug. 10, 2021), owners of a condominium unit rebuilt after a fire sued the condominium association, several association board members, the association’s property management company and the general contractor for the reconstruction work. The owners’ suit alleged faulty workmanship and incomplete repairs. In addition, the owners asserted fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the management company, alleging conflicts of interest and self-dealing between the management company and the general contractor, which had common ownership. In a third-party complaint, the management company sought coverage from the condo association’s liability and D&O insurer. The court dismissed the D&O coverage claim, noting that the management company was not a director or officer or otherwise entitled to insured status for the D&O coverage part. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    May 10, 2022 —
    The Metaverse is an immersive world combining virtual reality and augmented reality, where users are represented by avatars and roam virtual spaces. It comprises a variety of platforms and environments that can be explored, experienced, and developed. Online social games like Second Life, Fortnite and Minecraft are among the first wave of successful Metaverse games. Now, Meta and Microsoft see the Metaverse as a place to play, live, and work. A JP Morgan white paper stated that opportunities in the Metaverse seem “limitless.” The bank predicted that virtual worlds will “infiltrate every sector in some ways in the coming years.” A March 31 report by Citi concluded that the Metaverse has the potential to become a $13 trillion opportunity by 2030, with total global users of between one and five billion. According to Citi, the Metaverse will become a significant part of the next iteration of the internet (referred to as Web3) enabled by a variety of existing and emerging technologies, including 5G connectivity, secure blockchain and payment platforms, crypto assets, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, 3D modeling tools and headset devices. A Land Rush, Virtually Speaking Not surprisingly, investors are speculating regarding the value and potential of “virtual land” within the Metaverse, where land sales in 2021 exceeded $500 million and attracted a lot of attention and hype. The Sandbox, Decentraland, Somnium Space and CryptoVoxels are the most active platforms and owners can build almost anything on their virtual parcels. The open-source Ethereum blockchain, with self-executing smart contract functionality, operates as the foundational layer for most platforms. Parcels of land in The Sandbox and Decentraland are purchased with cryptocurrencies (called SAND and MANA, respectively) on their platforms and can also be sold and purchased on secondary marketplaces like OpenSea. Reprinted courtesy of Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury, David W. Wright, Pillsbury and Craig A. de Ridder, Pillsbury Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Wright may be contacted at david.w.wright@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Deridder may be contacted at craig.deridder@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    December 09, 2011 —

    Two New Jersey contractors have pleaded guilty to charges that they made false representations for a government contract in a case related to kickbacks for construction work done in two school districts. New Jersey is recommending that the two men, Martin Starr and Stephen Gallagher, will each pay $50,000 in penalties, serve up to a year in jail, and be unable to accept public contracts for five years.

    Last month, another individual in the case, Kenneth Disko, who had been the engineer for the school district, pleaded guilty on a similar charge. In addition to a $50,000 penalty, he will be serving three to five years in prison. A fourth conspirator, Robert Berman, the former business administrator for one of the school districts, has to pay a $13,000 fine and cooperate with the investigation. He is also barred from public employment in New Jersey and has been terminated from his position.

    Starr admitted to preparing fictitious quotes which appeared to be from other contractors in order that his firm would seem to be the lowest bidder. Gallagher helped in preparing the fictitious bids and also provided cash kickbacks to Disko.

    Read the full story…

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

    Claims Against Broker Dismissed

    June 20, 2022 —
    Claims that the broker failed to secure adequate coverage for condominium owners were dismissed. Ting Lin v. Mountain Valley Indemn. Co., 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1254 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. March 10, 2022). The amended complaint alleged the agent, Century Max Inc., breached its duty to advise and sell to plaintiffs a homeowners and fire policy far in excess of $100,000 for their condominium unit, which was worth in excess of $600,000. Century moved to dismiss A fire in the building forced all owners to vacate their units. The entire building was thereafter declared unsafe for habitation by the City of New York. The condominium owners met and voted to not restore the building, but to sell the burnt-out shell and distribute the sales proceeds and the condominium's insurance among the unit owners. There was no indication that the owners would not be made whole once the funds were distributed. 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

    New York Office Secures Appellate Win in Labor Law 240(1) Fall in Basement Accident Case

    March 20, 2023 —
    New York, N.Y. (March 14, 2023) – New York Appellate Partner Nicholas P. Hurzeler and Managing Partner Gregory S. Katz recently prevailed when the New York Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the dismissal of a Labor Law 240(1) claim involving an accident that occurred in the basement of a house under construction. Balfe v. Graham, ___ AD3d ___ (2d Dept. 2023), decided March 8, 2023. In this matter, the plaintiff was installing ductwork in the basement of a house that had been stripped down to its foundation when he stepped backwards into an open hole that had been dug out of a concrete floor to accommodate the installation of an ejector pump. The lower court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim based on Labor Law 240(1), and he appealed. The plaintiff argued that he fell into an unprotected opening that should have been covered or barricaded. He further claimed the accident qualifies as a typical “falling worker” case within the scope of Labor Law 240(1), citing the depth of the hole needed to accommodate the ejector pump, and the size of the pump. Under the case law, a worker who falls into an uncovered opening on a construction site will typically be covered by Labor Law 240(1). Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas P. Hurzeler, Lewis Brisbois and Gregory S. Katz, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Katz may be contacted at Greg.Katz@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Hurzeler may be contacted at Nicholas.Hurzeler@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Useful Life: A Valuable Theory for Reducing Damages

    March 29, 2017 —
    The situation is one all too familiar to construction defect litigants. A homeowner contracts with a roofing contractor to install a new roof with a life expectancy of ten years.[1] After only five years, the homeowner brings a claim for construction defects in the roof alleging that the roof requires complete replacement due to water intrusion. The homeowner seeks damages for the full replacement cost of the roof. However, under a “useful life” theory, the homeowner would not be entitled to damages for the full amount of the replacement cost. Instead, the homeowner would be entitled to one-half of the cost of the replacement roof, taking into account the fact that he or she had been deprived of only five, rather than ten, years of use. “Useful life” is best understood as the expected length of time that a newly built construction element can be reasonably anticipated to last, subject to routine maintenance and ordinary wear and tear. The “useful life” theory holds that granting the homeowner damages for the full replacement cost of the roof would result in unjust enrichment to the homeowner, who had contracted for a roof with a ten-year, rather than a fifteen-year, useful life. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brooke E. Beebe, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Ms. Beebe may be contacted at brooke.beebe@csklegal.com

    Louisiana Court Holds That Application of Pollution Exclusion Would Lead to Absurd Results

    October 21, 2019 —
    A Louisiana court recently denied an excess insurer’s bid for summary judgment, finding that the insurer’s interpretation of a pollution exclusion would lead to “absurd results.” Central Crude, Inc., a crude oil transporter company, experienced an oil pipeline leak, allegedly causing damage to property belonging to Columbia Gas Transmission Company. Columbia Gas sued Central Crude seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief to compel remediation of the site. Central Crude sought coverage under a CGL primary insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual. The insurer initially agreed to cover Central Crude’s “reasonable and necessary costs” relating to the incident, but later refused to defend or indemnify Central Crude for any costs incurred from the incident. As a result, Central Crude brought suit against Liberty Mutual and its excess insurer, Great American, to enforce coverage. Great American moved for summary judgment arguing coverage was excluded by the excess policy’s pollution exclusion, which precludes coverage for injury “arising out of a discharge of pollutants.” Central Crude responded arguing that the exclusion’s applicability was invalidated or at least rendered ambiguous by the Following Form Endorsements, which reflect an intent to mirror the coverage afforded under the primary Liberty Mutual policy, and because coverage appears to be specifically authorized through the Premises Operations Liability Endorsement. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of