BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestration
    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


    Two Years, Too Late: Time-Barred Hurricane Loss is Timely Reminder to Insureds

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Owner’s Obligation Giving Notice to Cure to Contractor and Analyzing Repair Protocol

    Florida Lawmakers Fail to Reach Agreement on Condominium Safety Bill

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    School District Settles Over Defective Athletic Field

    Policy Sublimit Does Not Apply to Business Interruption Loss

    Will The New U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal Calm Industry Jitters?

    Court Makes an Unsettling Inference to Find that the Statute of Limitations Bars Claims Arising from a 1997 Northridge Earthquake Settlement

    One World Trade Center Tallest Building in US

    The Leaning Tower of San Francisco

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

    Learning from Production Homes of the Past

    The Requirement to State a “Sum Certain” No Longer a Jurisdictional Bar to Government Contract Claims

    Chicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing Requirements

    In Hong Kong, You Can Find a Home Where the Buffalo Roam

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

    The Project “Completion” Paradox in California

    Housing Starts in U.S. Drop to Lowest Level in Three Months

    Technology and the Environment Lead Construction Trends That Will Continue Through 2019

    Denial of Claim for Concealment or Fraud Reversed by Sixth Circuit

    Developer Africa Israel Wins a Round in New York Condominium Battle

    Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

    11th Circuit Affirms Bad Faith Judgement Against Primary Insurer

    DOJ to Prosecute Philadelphia Roofing Company for Worker’s Death

    The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

    Chambers USA 2021 Recognizes Five Partners and Two Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

    Turkey to Start Building 200,000 Homes in March, Erdogan Says

    Appraisal May Include Cause of Loss Issues

    Housing to Top Capital Spending in Next U.S. Growth Leg: Economy

    Colombia's $15 Billion Road Plan Bounces Back From Bribe Scandal

    Injury to Employees Endorsement Eliminates Coverage for Insured Employer

    West Virginia Wild: Crews Carve Out Corridor H Through the Appalachian Mountains

    Nashville Stadium Bond Deal Tests Future of Spectator Sports

    Judge Who Oversees Mass. Asbestos Docket Takes New Role As Chief Justice of Superior Court

    Duty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs In

    EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

    Subcontractor Allowed to Sue Designer for Negligence: California Courts Chip Away at the Economic Loss Doctrine (Independent Duty Rule)

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    DC Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s CERCLA Decision Regarding Hardrock Mining Industry

    Marlena Ellis Makes The Lawyers of Color Hot List of 2022

    It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

    Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

    Protect Workers From Falls: A Leading Cause of Death

    Will There Be Construction Defect Legislation Introduced in the 2019 Colorado Legislative Session?

    COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

    Designer of World’s Tallest Building Wants to Turn Skyscrapers Into Batteries
    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

    Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging

    December 06, 2021 —
    When Elmhurst Group, a Pittsburgh-area developer, started collecting bids for a new mixed-use building last November, the price of the steel frame, roof and cladding panels for the $14-million project came in $382,000 higher than expected—a big enough disappointment to give Elmhurst pause. Overall material costs for the project were running more than $650,000 above what was originally calculated. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record, Jonathan Barnes, Engineering News-Record and Greg Aragon, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race

    October 22, 2014 —
    According to today’s Denver Business Journal, construction defects have emerged as a potential issue in Colorado’s gubernatorial race. During last night’s debate, Republican challenger Bob Beauprez criticized incumbent Democrat John Hickenlooper for failing to help senators with a last-minute push to enact a bill stripping away homeowner protections in construction disputes. Republicans had argued that the bill was needed to appease apartment developers who claim that quality control and insurance costs are too high on condominium projects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
    Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net

    Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor

    February 10, 2020 —
    Nationwide, homeowners’ insurers routinely face foundation wall collapse claims. But in Connecticut, where at least 30,000 homes are believed to have been constructed in the 1980s and 1990s with defective concrete, the scope of homeowners insurance for collapse claims has been a closely watched issue. In Jemiola v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2019 WL 5955904 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019), the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a collapse coverage grant requiring “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose” is unambiguous and enforceable. In Jemiola, the insured homeowner purchased her home in 1986 and insured it continuously with the same insurer. In 2006, the homeowner noticed cracking in a basement wall, and was informed that the cracking likely resulted from defective concrete used in the construction of the home. The homeowner made a claim under her policy’s collapse coverage, which the insurer denied because the cracking did not compromise the structural integrity of the foundation walls. In the resulting lawsuit, the insured’s expert opined that the defective concrete substantially impaired the foundation walls’ structural integrity, but that this impairment did not commence until 2006 when the homeowner first noticed the cracking. Accordingly, the court analyzed coverage under the collapse coverage grant in effect in 2006, which defined collapse to mean “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com

    Michigan Lawmakers Pass $4.7B Infrastructure Spending Bill

    April 11, 2022 —
    Michigan lawmakers have passed legislation appropriating $4.7 billion for state infrastructure, including more than $1 billion for various water projects.About $750 million will go toward drinking water infrastructure such as projects to replace lead service lines or remove contaminants like PFA substances, potentially harmful chemicals used in industrial and consumer products that are have been found in water. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor Sues License Board

    June 30, 2011 —

    Judge Kendall J. Newman of the US District Court handed down a decision on June 24 on the case of Kent v California Department of Consumer Affairs. Mr. Kent, appearing as his own counsel, had brought the suit against the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the Contractors State Licensing Board after he was arrested in a sting operation and, as the plaintiff put it, “was absurdly arrested and uncooperatively detained for a time longer than necessary or allowed by law under the false pretense of contracting with out a license.” Mr. Kent’s alleged that Rick Lopez, one of the defendants, formed him to read allow from the California Business and Professions Code. He said he was later handcuffed and placed in an uncomfortable chair, “enduring physical pain and emotional agony.”

    Although Kent was given a Notice to Appear, he alleged that a further defendant, Stuart Rind, “closed the plaintiff’s case marked citation A7773 without giving written notice to anyone.” As a result, the Placer County District Attorney’s Office had no record of his Notice to Appear.

    Kent alleged that subsequently his firm was essentially shut down for two years and that he was prevented from “legally contracting or selling services for any other contractor or qualifying for any other licensed capacity governed by the CSLB.” After this, the CSLB suspended the license for his firm, DSI Construction. He was assessed a $1,500 fine, after which he claims he sent a letter to the CSLB demanding money damages. The judge noted that the letter was not included in the plaintiff’s Ninth Amended Complaint.

    Judge Kendall recommended that the plaintiff’s Complaints be dismissed, although he did allow that sixth, and perhaps the eighth and ninth, could be amended with a tenth amended complaint.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

    September 01, 2011 —

    This is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog.  Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.

    In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.

    The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Benefits to Insureds Under Property Insurance Policy – Concurrent Cause Doctrine

    December 08, 2016 —
    The Florida Supreme Court in Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co., Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly S582a (Fla. 2016) gave really good news to claimants seeking recovery under a first-party all-risk property insurance policy. The Court held that the concurrent cause doctrine and not the efficient proximate cause doctrine was the proper theory of recovery to apply when multiple perils—an excluded peril and a covered peril-combined to create a property loss. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

    Montana Theater Threatened by Closure due to Building Safety

    January 14, 2015 —
    Phil Henderson, owner of Stevensville Hardware which is adjacent to the theater, has sued the Stevensville Playhouse, alleging that one of the theater building’s walls leans over into his property, according to the Bitterroot Star. Henderson stated that the leaning wall is interfering with construction plan, and he also alleges that the building is not safe and should be condemned. A building inspector hired by Henderson declared that “…it seems necessary to notify the Stevensville Playhouse that their structure is to be immediately considered unsafe for entry, occupancy, etc.” However, another engineering firm presented a different view on the situation: “The playhouse has withstood many snow storms and earthquakes during its life and will likely continue to function well into the future. We do not mean to downplay the need to perform the recommended repairs, but we do not feel that the building needs to be condemned at this point.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of