BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management 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


    Denver Parking Garage Roof Collapses Crushing Vehicles

    Court of Appeal Holds Only “Named Insureds” May Sue for Bad Faith Under California FAIR Plan Policy

    Get Smarter About Electric Construction Equipment

    Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/04/23) – NFL Star Gets into Real Estate, DOJ Focuses on “Buyer-Broker Commissions”, and the Auto Workers’ Strike Continues

    The Independent Tort Doctrine (And Its Importance)

    Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market

    Another Colorado City Passes Construction Defects Ordinance

    AI-Powered Construction Optioneering Today

    Second Circuit Brings Clarity To Scope of “Joint Employer” Theory in Discrimination Cases

    Structural Engineer Found Liable for Defects that Rendered a Condominium Dangerously Unsafe

    Heat Stress Deaths Show Europe Isn’t Ready for Climate Change

    URGENT: 'Catching Some Hell': Hurricane Michael Slams Into Florida

    Tests Find Pollution From N.C. Coal Ash Site Hit by Florence Within Acceptable Levels

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    Mass Timber Reduces Construction’s Carbon Footprint, But Introduces New Risk Scenarios

    Why Builders Should Reconsider Arbitration Clauses in Construction Contracts

    Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame

    Cape Town Seeks World Cup Stadium Construction Collusion Damages

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Use It or Lose It: California Court of Appeal Addresses Statutes of Limitations for Latent Construction Defects and Damage to Real Property

    OSHA Begins Enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard. Try Saying That Five Times Real Fast

    No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

    When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Cannot Assert Contribution Claims Against the Insured

    California Supreme Court Declares that Exclusionary Rule for Failing to Comply with Expert Witness Disclosures Applies at the Summary Judgment Stage

    Quick Note: Do Your Homework When it Comes to Selecting Your Arbitrator

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Affordable Harlem Housing Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Unpunished Racist Taunts: A Pennsylvania Harassment Case With No True 'Winner'

    U.S. State Adoption of the National Electrical Code

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Highlighted | 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    Grad Student Sues UC Santa Cruz over Mold in Residence

    US Supreme Court Backs Panama Canal Owner in Dispute with Builders

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    UK Agency Seeks Stricter Punishments for Illegal Wastewater Discharges

    Hunton’s Alice Weeks Selected to the Miami Dade Bar’s Circle of Excellence for Insurance Litigation

    Climate-Proofing Your Home: Upgrades to Weather a Drought

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part II

    Quarter Four a Good One for Luxury Homebuilder

    Firm Claims Construction Defects in Hawaiian Homes

    Falls Requiring Time Off from Work are Increasing

    Are You Satisfying WISHA Standards?

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    Be Careful When Requiring Fitness for Duty Examinations

    While Construction Permits Slowly Rise, Construction Starts and Completions in California Are Stagnant

    Details of Sealed Whistleblower Charges Over Cuomo Bridge Bolts Burst Into Public View

    South Caroline Holds Actual Cash Value Can Include Depreciation of Labor Costs

    A Proactive Approach to Construction Safety

    Mitigating FCRA Risk Through Insurance

    Emerging World Needs $1.5 Trillion for Green Buildings, IFC Says
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

    February 10, 2020 —
    On November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register. Background As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency. In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    November 23, 2020 —
    After an insurance carrier denied a lawyer and her law firm’s claim for lost business income due to the COVID-19-related shutdown, she sued both her carrier and the insurance producer that procured the policy. See Wilson v. Hartford Casualty Company, No. 20-3384 (E.D.Pa. Sep. 30, 2020). In one of the first cases to consider producer liability in COVID-19 cases, Judge Eduardo Robreno dismissed the lawsuit against the producer and the carrier. USI procured the Policy from Hartford for Rhonda Hill Wilson and her law firm. The Policy included coverage for lost business income and extra expense caused by direct physical loss of, or damage to property. Similarly, the Policy covered lost business income if a nearby property experienced a direct physical loss that caused a civil authority to issue an order that prohibited access to the law firm’s property. The Policy also included a virus exclusion “for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by . . . [p]resence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of . . . virus.” Judge Robreno did not decide whether the Policy afforded any coverage to Wilson and her law firm for their COVID-19 losses. Rather, he found that even if they could, the virus exclusion unambiguously barred any coverage they could possibly claim. For that reason, Judge Robreno dismissed the claims against Hartford. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher P. Leise, White and Williams LLP and Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP Mr. Leise may be contacted at leisec@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Window Insulation Introduced to U.S. Market

    February 04, 2014 —
    According to Construction Digital, Nitto has introduced PENJEREX, “a new transparent energy-saving window insulation film to the US Market” that may “satisfy the requirement for enhanced energy efficiency and CO2 reduction in the housing industry.” The film is transparent, while still providing insulation, which helps maintain “the natural look of the home,” reported Construction Digital. The product “is said to improve insulation by reducing heat transfer by 35 percent.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

    May 20, 2019 —
    It is one of those dreaded business situations that plagues the construction industry, especially in times of economic downturn—what to do when a lower-tier entity files a lien against a property then disappears. It has happened to countless owners, general contractors, subcontractors, and even some particularly unlucky sub-tier subcontractors and suppliers. Here is how it arises: a project is moving along, then performance or payment issues arise, and a company that is over extended or unwilling to continue work stops performance, walks off the job, and files a lien against the property for whatever amounts were allegedly unpaid. Often, the allegedly unpaid sums were legitimately withheld due to a good faith dispute over payment/performance, and it is not unusual for the defaulting entity to not be entitled to any of the sums claimed in the lien. Regardless, the lien stays on the property, and pressure is applied from the “upstream” entities to the party who contracted with the defaulting entity to “deal” with the lien. Oftentimes, a contract will require the parties to “deal” with a lien by obtaining a lien release bond (“release bond”). For those lucky enough to not have encountered this issue, a release bond is a nifty statutory device whereby a surety agrees to record a release bond for the full claimed amount of the lien, with the release bond substituting in for the liened property, effectively discharging the property from liability under the lien. In other words, the lien is released from the property and attaches to the release bond. If the lien claimant recovers on its lien, it is technically satisfied by the surety providing the release bond (or the party who agrees to indemnify and defend the release bond). In exchange for delivering the release bond, the surety demands yearly premiums be paid on the release bond amount Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com

    One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

    June 28, 2011 —

    According to the Supreme Court of Washington Blog, The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jackowski v. Hawkins Poe on Thursday, June 16, 2011. The court’s synopsis of the case can be found on the Washington State Court website.

    In short, two home purchasers brought a lawsuit against the home’s sellers, the sellers’ agent and the purchasers’ own agent, alleging claims of fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation and breach of common law and statutory duties. The trial court dismissed the buyers’ claims on the basis of the economic loss doctrine and Division II reversed, opining that the ELR does not apply to professional duties. The Supreme Court will now look at applying the Independent Duty Doctrine established last year, and whether professional duties (those of the real estate agents) should be reviewed under a different light.

    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

    Remodel Leads to Construction Defect Lawsuit

    October 16, 2013 —
    The Sacramento, California law firm Anderson Shoech has announced that it will be filing a construction defect lawsuit concerning a single-family home in Sonora, California. The remodel is alleged to have lead to roof leaks and mold growth. Anderson Schoech will have the home inspected by a general contractor who will be retained as an expert witness. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Guide to Evaluating Snow & Ice Cases

    December 13, 2021 —
    New York, N.Y. (November 9, 2021) - As the winter season nears, defendant property owners are reminded that New York law imposes liability for sidewalk accidents resulting from slip and falls on snow and ice. Within the City of New York, Administrative Code § 7-210 imposes liability on the owners of real property (other than single-family dwellings) to maintain an abutting sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition, which includes the removal of snow and ice. Some of the most important issues in this area of the law were recently reaffirmed by New York’s Appellate Division in Zamora v. David Caccavo, LLC, 190 A.D.3d 895 (2d Dept. 2021). In particular, that the Court of Appeals made clear in 2019 that the statutory non-delegable duty to remove snow and ice from sidewalks extends even to out-of-possession landowners, who, although they may shift the work of maintaining the sidewalk to another, "cannot shift the duty, nor exposure and liability for injuries caused by negligent maintenance, imposed under [Administrative Code §] 7-210." Xiang Fu He v. Troon Mgt., Inc., 34 N.Y.3d 167, 174 (2019). In other words, even if the defendant leases the property to a tenant who is obligated under the lease to maintain the property in every way, including snow and ice on sidewalks, the defendant cannot escape liability by claiming the tenant is solely responsible for the plaintiff’s loss. On the other hand, property owners are not strictly liable for all personal injuries that occur on the abutting sidewalks, because the statute "adopts a duty and standard of care that accords with traditional tort principles of negligence and causation." Xiang Fu He v. Troon Mgt., Inc., 34 N.Y.3d at 171. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    California Trial Court Clarifies Application of SB800 Roofing Standards and Expert’s Opinions

    February 18, 2020 —
    Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli partners Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta obtained a trial victory when the jury returned a 12-0 defense verdict against one plaintiff homeowner, and awarded the other homeowner less than $2,000, an amount well below the defendant’s pre-trial CCP 998 Offers to Compromise. One of the main issues in the case was the application of SB800 roofing standards. Plaintiffs’ roofing expert testified in deposition no water entered the structure or passed through a moisture barrier [Civ. Code §896(a)(4)], and no materials had fallen off the roof [§896(g)(11)]. In an attempt to circumvent the applicable performance standards, Plaintiffs argued Civ. Code §869(g)(3)(A), also known as the ‘useful life’ exception, applied because the various components of the roof (nailing pattern, tiles, vents, etc.) were installed in such a manner so as to reduce the useful life of the roof. Following pre-trial motions and objections made during Plaintiffs’ direct examination, the Court ruled Section 896(g)(3)(A) did not apply to a conventional roof, as it is not a “manufactured product” as defined in §896(g)(3)(C). Plaintiffs’ roofing claims were summarily dismissed and Plaintiffs’ expert was prevented from testifying. In contrast, the defense expert, Mark Chapman, was allowed to testify regarding his expert opinions as to the appropriate SB800 standard relative to each alleged defect and whether the standards were violated. The SB800 performance standards were included on the jury verdict form, and the jury found Mr. Chapman’s testimony compelling, which was a substantial factor in awarding only minor damages to one Plaintiff. For more information, contact Scott Calkins (scalkins@cslawoffices.com), Anthony Gaeta (ageta@cslawoffices.com) or Mark Chapman (mchapman@berthowe.com). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of