BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code 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


    How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

    Serial ADA Lawsuits Targeting Small Business Owners

    Brazil Builder Bondholders Burned by Bribery Allegations

    Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy

    Civil Engineers: Montana's Infrastructure Grade Declines to a 'C-'

    Unit Owners Have No Standing to Sue under Condominium Association’s Policy

    The Overlooked Nevada Rule In an Arena Project Lawsuit

    2018 Update to EPA’s “Superfund Task Force Report”

    Florida County Suspends Impact Fees to Spur Development

    Terminating Notice of Commencement Without Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Quick Note: Can a Party Disclaim Liability in their Contract to Fraud?

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    House Bill Clarifies Start Point for Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Couple Claims Poor Installation of Home Caused Defects

    ASCE Statement on House Failure to Pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel

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

    No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/06/22

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Damages in Excess of Policy Limits Do Not Trigger Right to Independent Counsel

    Houston Office Secures Favorable Verdict in Trespass and Nuisance Case Involving Subcontractor’s Accidental Installation of Storm Sewer Pipe on Plaintiff’s Property

    Eighth Circuit Considers Judicial Estoppel in Hazardous Substance Release-Related Personal Injury Case

    The One New Year’s Resolution You’ll Want to Keep if You’re Involved in Public Works Projects

    Water Bond Would Authorize $7.5 Billion for California Water Supply Infrastructure Projects

    Illinois Supreme Court Announces Time Standards for Closing Out Cases

    Construction Defect Claims are on the Rise Due to Pandemic-Related Issues

    The Cheap and Easy Climate Fix That Can Cool the Planet Fast

    Contractual Waiver of Consequential Damages

    Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences as Affirmative Defense

    Wisconsin Court Applies the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Negligence Claims for Purely Economic Losses

    The Trend in the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/16/22) – Backlog Shifts, Green Battery Storage, and Russia-Ukraine Updates

    U.S. Tornadoes, Hail Cost Insurers $1 Billion in June

    When Employer’s Liability Coverage May Be Limited in New York

    Rams Owner Stan Kroenke Debuts His $5.5 Billion Dream Stadium

    Federal Courts Reject Insurers’ Attempts to Recoup Defense Costs Expended Under Reservation of Rights

    Contractor Beware: Design-Build Firms Must Review Washington’s Licensing Requirements

    Preserving Your Construction Claim

    Pushing the Edge: Crews Carve Dam Out of Remote Turkish Mountains

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

    NYC Airports Get $500,000 Makeover Contest From Cuomo

    Super Lawyers Selects Haight Lawyers for Its 2024 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Autovol’s Affordable Housing Project with Robotic Automation

    Considering Stormwater Management

    Home Sales and Stock Price Up for D. R. Horton

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand

    Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s 2024 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!!

    Commerce City Enacts Reform to Increase For-Sale Multifamily Housing

    A Court-Side Seat: Flint Failures, Missed Deadlines, Toad Work and a Game of Chicken

    Construction Warranties and the Statute of Repose – Southern States Chemical, Inc v. Tampa Tank & Welding Inc.
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    August 27, 2013 —
    Whenever a homeowner association (HOA) starts thinking in terms of a construction defect lawsuit against its developer and/or builder, its board members will inevitably be confronted with the purported risk and liability to their homeowners if they do not pursue the alleged defects and deficiencies brought to their attention. Not surprisingly, the board members are on occasion led to believe that pursuing such claims is synonymous with acting in the homeowners’ “best interests.” Further—and unfortunately—board members often feel as though they will breach their obligation to the homeowners if theydon’t agree to proceed with such claims. Nevertheless, how well do we really know what the board members’ duty actually consists of, when it applies, and what potential liability exists for a board member’s breach of same? The answers might surprise you. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lindenschmidt
    Derek Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

    Enhanced Geothermal Energy Could Be the Next Zero-Carbon Hero

    June 10, 2024 —
    Hydrogen, solar, wind—and even microwave beams from outer space—are a few of the alternative energies being explored as the world strives to cut the cord on carbon emissions. Recently, advancements in geothermal energy technologies appear poised to significantly expand geothermal’s reach. These new methods, varyingly referred to as enhanced, engineered or advanced geothermal systems (collectively referred to here as EGS), have recently made strides in scalability and grabbed the attention of changemakers. If successful, EGS may play a major role in the clean energy transition. The technique creates no emissions and is virtually limitless (it pulls from heat generated by the Earth’s core), and can provide constant baseload power, making it appealing to green-minded investors. This article calls attention to the progress and variety of EGS projects and proposals that Pillsbury sees as part of the ongoing energy transition. People have long been drawn to geothermal energy, with Paleo-Americans settling at hot springs some 10,000 years ago. In 1892, Boise, Idaho, became the first town to establish a district heating system that piped naturally occurring hot water from underground and into homes. It would take another 70 years for other cities to replicate the feat, but now 17 U.S. districts use such systems, along with dozens more worldwide. Reprinted courtesy of Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury, Robert A. James, Pillsbury and Clarence H. Tolliver, Pillsbury Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Tolliver may be contacted at clarence.tolliver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Weyerhaeuser Leaving Home Building Business

    November 13, 2013 —
    The Washington-based timber giant, Weyerhaeuser, has announced that has sold off its homebuilding business. The division went by the name of WRECO (Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company) and comprised five home builders, Maracay Homes, Pardee Homes, Quadrant Homes, Trendmaker Homes, and Winchester Homes. The division was bought by TRI Pointe Homes for about $2.7 billion of which $700 million was paid in cash. Weyerhaeuser intends to focus on their core business of timber products. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases

    November 26, 2014 —
    In Nevada, homeowners who sue a builder for residential constructional defects may recover attorneys’ fees and costs caused by the defect. Many times, the request for attorneys’ fees can outpace the size of the actual claim for defects. However, Nevada provides builders with two ways to potentially shift the right to recover attorneys’ fees and costs away from the homeowner and to the builder. The first arises during the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 40 process (Nevada’s Right to Repair law). After a builder receives notice of construction defects, it is required to provide the claimant with a written response to each defect, which may include a proposal for monetary compensation (including contribution from a subcontractor, supplier, or design professional). See NRS 40.6472. If a claimant unreasonably rejects a reasonable written offer of settlement included in the response and decides to commence litigation, the court may deny the claimant’s attorneys’ fees and costs and award attorneys’ fees and costs to the builder. See NRS 40.650. Thus, by including a reasonable offer of monetary compensation in a Chapter 40 response, a builder could possibly avoid paying any fees and costs and even recover its own fees in defending against the claim. A second method for shifting fees and costs is through a written offer of judgment (OOJ). See NRS 17.115 and NRCP 68. Not limited solely to construction defect matters, an OOJ is a useful tool in all kinds of litigation. OOJs are designed to facilitate and encourage pre-trial settlement by incentivizing parties to make reasonable settlement offers that—when unreasonably rejected—have the consequence of shifting the right to recover attorneys’ fees. Basically, when a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the court cannot award any attorneys’ fees and costs to the rejecting party and may award attorneys’ fees incurred from the date of the offer to the entry of judgment, as well as all reasonable costs, to the party who made the offer. In a recent decision, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that when a homeowner rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, it can wipe out that homeowner’s right to Chapter 40 fees and costs. See Gunderson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Feb. 27, 2014). In other words, “While NRS Chapter 40 permits an award of reasonable attorney fees proximately caused by a construction defect, it does not guarantee it.” Id. Because of the potentially harsh consequences of rejecting an OOJ, there are specific requirements that must be met to trigger them. An offer of judgment must be made in writing, can be made at any time at least 10 days before trial, and is irrevocable for 10 days with no provision for withdrawal before the 10 days expire. See Nava v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 396, 46 P.3d 60 (2002). A party may make successive offers of judgment, but the most recent offer extinguishes previous offers and is controlling for determining the date from which attorneys’ fees may be awarded. See Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006). In Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983), the Nevada Supreme Court explained that the purpose of OOJs are not to cause plaintiffs to unfairly forego legitimate claims. However, when a valid offer of judgment is made, the offer is rejected, and the party rejecting the offer fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, a court must evaluate whether the plaintiff's claim was brought in good faith; whether the offer of judgment was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount; whether the plaintiff's decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith; and whether the fees sought by the offer are reasonable and justified. “After weighing the foregoing factors, the district judge may, where warranted, award up to the full amount of fees requested.” Id. It is worth noting that in Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006), the Nevada Supreme Court held that when a party rejects a reasonable OOJ and is foreclosed from recovering fees and costs, the party is likewise foreclosed from an award of fees and costs under Chapter 40. This means that even if a builder fails to include a monetary settlement offer as part of a Chapter 40 response, it may still avoid paying the claimant’s fees and costs with a reasonable and timely OOJ. Finally, it is important to remember that OOJs are a powerful tool that can cut both ways. If an OOJ is not reasonable and timely, or if it fails to contemplate all the potential recovery of an offeree, the OOJ may have no effect on the outcome of a case. Moreover, if a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, that party could end up paying the offeror’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the offer. Given this powerful impact, OOJs should be an integral part of pre-litigation planning and overall litigation strategy. About the Author Casey J. Quinn is an associate in the Las Vegas office of Newmeyer & Dillion LLP. His practice focuses on complex commercial, construction, and insurance litigation and appellate work. Casey can be reached by email at Casey.Quinn@ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Motion to Dismiss Denied Regarding Insureds' Claim For Collapse

    October 29, 2014 —
    The federal district court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss claims for loss due to the imminent collapse of the insureds' basement walls. Belz v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2014 WL 4364914 (D. Conn. Sept. 2, 2014). The insureds noticed cracks throughout their basement walls. It was discovered that the condition was the result of a chemical compound used in the concrete of certain basement walls in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The insureds contended that due to the cracking, the basement walls suffered a substantial impairment to their structural integrity making it only a matter of time until the walls collapsed. The insureds notified their insurer, Peerless. An engineer hired by Peerless determined the walls' condition was caused by poor workmanship and defective materials. On this basis, Peerless denied coverage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    New Notary Language For Mechanics Lien Releases and Stop Payment Notice Releases

    January 21, 2015 —
    Thanks to Scott Wolfe, Jr. over at ZLien for bringing this to my attention: Effective January 1, 2015, the notary language required for Certificates of Acknowledgment – used by notaries for mechanics lien releases and stop payment notice releases in California – now require the following new wording to appear at the top of the notary certificate in a box:
    A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
    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

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    October 01, 2013 —
    “We anticipate an increase in residential construction defect litigation in response to this ruling,” David Frenznic, a construction defect lawyer at Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney LLP told the Central Valley Business Times. Mr. Frenznic was responding to an August ruling by the California Court of Appeals that found that SB800 does not create the only remedy for homeowners with construction defects. “Homeowners who suffer actual damage as a result of construction defects have a choice of remedies,” said Mr. Frenznick. SB800 established a shorter statute of limitations for construction defect claims, however, “the ruling makes clear that common law claims are still governed by the longer statues of limitations.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    August 17, 2011 —

    Have you ever considered a “Safe Harbor Provision” for your Owner-Architect or Owner-Engineer contract? Maybe it is time that you do.

    As you are (probably too well) aware, on every construction project there are changes. Some of these are due to the owner’s change of heart, value engineering concerns, contractor failures, and material substitutions. Some may be because of a design error, omission, or drawing conflict. It happens.

    A “Safe Harbor Provision” is a provision that establishes an acceptable percentage of increased construction costs (that is, a percentage of the project’s contingency). The idea is that if the construction changes attributable to the designer is within this percentage, no claim will be made by the Owner for design defects.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.

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