BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut stucco 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


    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

    South Africa Wants Payment From Colluding World Cup Builders

    Housing Starts Rebound in U.S. as Inflation Eases: Economy

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    Five Frequently Overlooked Points of Construction Contracts

    Foundation Differences Across the U.S.

    One Stat About Bathrooms Explains Why You Can’t Find a House

    U.S. Supreme Court Allows Climate Change Lawsuits to Proceed in State Court

    N.J. Appellate Court Applies Continuous Trigger Theory in Property Damage Case and Determines “Last Pull” for Coverage

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    BWB&O Attorneys are Selected to 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office on Another Successful MSJ!

    Nuclear Energy Gets a Much-Needed Boost

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    Modernist Houses Galore! [visual candy for architects]

    California’s Right To Repair Act Is The Sole Remedy For Damages For Construction Defects In New Residential Construction

    FIFA May Reduce World Cup Stadiums in Russia on Economic Concern

    Sustainable, Versatile and Resilient: How Mass Timber Construction Can Shake Up the Building Industry

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

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

    Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

    ASCE Statement on EPA Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    Large Canada Employers and Jobsites Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines

    New York Appellate Court Applies Broad Duty to Defend to Property Damage Case

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

    The 2023 Term of the Supreme Court: Administrative and Regulatory Law Rulings

    The Multigenerational Housing Trend

    Court Adopts Magistrate's Recommendation to Deny Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    Employee Exclusion Bars Coverage for Wrongful Death of Subcontractor's Employee

    Wildfire Risk Harms California Home Values, San Francisco Fed Study Finds

    San Diego County Considering Updates to Green Building Code

    Millennials Want Houses, Just Like Everybody Else

    Corps Releases Final Report on $29B Texas Gulf Coast Hurricane Defense Plan

    Cuba: Construction Boom Potential for U.S. Construction Companies and Equipment Manufacturers?

    The “Up” House is “Up” for Sale

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

    City and Contractor Disclaim Responsibility for Construction Error that Lead to Blast

    Pay Inequities Are a Symptom of Broader Gender Biases, Studies Show

    Condominium Association Responsibility to Resolve Construction Defect Claims

    Fifth Circuit Concludes Government’s CAA Legal Claims are Time-Barred But Injunctive-Relief Claims are Not

    Understanding the Miller Act

    Jury Instruction That Fails to Utilize Concurrent Cause for Property Loss is Erroneous

    It Pays to Review the ‘Review the Contract Documents’ Clause Before You Sign the Contract

    South Carolina Supreme Court Finds that Consequential Damage Arise From "Occurrence"

    Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”

    Responding to Ransomware Learning from Colonial Pipeline

    The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

    Strategy for Enforcement of Dispute Resolution Rights

    Insurance Measures Passed by 2015 Hawaii Legislature
    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

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    November 21, 2017 —
    Originally published by CDJ on March 16, 2017 Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWL Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379 COURT OF APPEAL EXTENDS GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. v. MIDTEC, INC., HOLDING THAT CIVIL CODE §936 CREATES A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD FOR CLAIMS AGAINST MATERIAL SUPPLIERS BROUGHT UNDER SB800. The Fourth District California Court of Appeal recently published its decision Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895 and §936) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier's negligence or breach of contract. Civil Code §936 states in relevant part, that it applies "to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract .... [T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any general contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, individual product manufacturer, or design professional with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply." Reprinted courtesy of Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq., Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq., Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Is a Text a Writing?

    June 10, 2024 —
    Is a text message a writing? Project communication is constantly evolving, and text messages are an increasingly common way teams share pictures, video, and provide project updates. When texting is part of the communication flow on a project, contractors and owners might text approvals for extra work, notices of changed conditions, or other information that could be a basis for a change order. In a text exchange about a compensable event, the notice, reply, and approval are all saved on the phone. But contracts often contain specific requirements for a contractor or subcontractor to request changes and authorization to proceed may be specifically required in writing. For example, the Associated General Contractors of Washington – 2018 Standard Subcontract says the “Subcontractor shall make no claims for extras unless the same shall be agreed upon in writing by Contractor prior to performance of any such extra work.” (emphasis added). The AGC subcontract doesn’t define “writing,” so the subcontractor and contractor might wonder if a text message exchange about a potentially compensable event was an “agreement in writing.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Yelle, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Yelle may be contacted at michael.yelle@acslawyers.com

    Chicago Cubs Agree to Make Wrigley Field ADA Improvements to Settle Feds' Lawsuit

    December 03, 2024 —
    Major League Baseball’s Chicago Cubs have entered into a settlement with the U.S. Dept. of Justice over renovations to Wrigley Field, federal and Cubs officials announced Oct. 31. As part of the settlement, the team agreed to update Wrigley Field with more accessibility options for people with disabilities. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, ENR
    Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com

    Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

    November 08, 2017 —
    On October 4, the Second Circuit held that Harleysville Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify a project owner or general contractor as additional insureds under a sub-subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy due to lack of direct contractual privity. 1 The underlying claim arose when an employee of The Kimmell Company, Inc. (Kimmell) was injured while repairing an HVAC system at a building owned by the University of Rochester Medical Center (UR). The injured employee sought damages for his injuries and fi led suit against (1) UR; (2) LeChase Construction Corp. (LeChase), the general contractor for the project; and (3) J.T. Mauro Co. Inc. (Mauro), a subcontractor hired by LeChase. Mauro hired Kimmell as a sub-subcontractor to perform HVAC services at the project. The Mauro-Kimmel contract required Kimmel to add Mauro, UR, and LeChase as additional insureds under Kimmell’s CGL policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Samantha M. Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    September 01, 2011 —

    Although the court determined there was an occurrence, coverage was excluded by the business risk exclusions.  See Cont’l W. Ins. Co. v. Shay Constr. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82839 (D. Colo. July 28, 2011).

    White was the general contractor on the project. White had three subcontracts with Shay to provide framing, siding, and related work on the project. Shay was insured under a CGL policy issued by Continental Western.

    Two of Shay’s subcontractors furnished materials, labor and equipment to Shay. These subcontractors filed suit in state court alleging they had not been compensated for the work and materials. White and Shay were named as defendants. White cross claimed against Shay, alleging Shay had breached its obligations under the subcontracts. Several allegations sounded in contract. Other allegations, however, contended Shay had performed defective work and had damaged the work of other trades in correcting deficiencies in its own performance.

    Shay sought coverage under Continental Western’s policy. Continental Western filed suit for a declaratory judgment and moved for summary judgment.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Colorado House Bill 19-1170: Undefined Levels of Mold or Dampness Can Make a Leased Residential Premises Uninhabitable

    April 03, 2019 —
    One of the 407 bills the Colorado legislature is considering as of the date of this blog post is House Bill 19-1170, the Residential Tenants Health and Safety Act, which can be found at https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1170 and clicking on the link for the recent bill text. The bill passed the House on February 26 and is in the Senate for consideration. The bill currently adds two substantive conditions to those conditions that make a residential premises uninhabitable. One is the lack of functioning appliances that conformed to applicable law when installed and that are maintained in good working order. The second is “mold that is associated with dampness, or there is any other condition causing the premises to be damp, which condition, if not remedied, would materially interfere with the health or safety of the tenant…,” referred to here as “the mold or dampness provision.” The bill also amends various procedural provisions of Colorado law to make enforcement by a tenant easier and broadens tenant remedies. The bill grants jurisdiction to county and small claims courts to grant injunctions for breach. This article focuses on the mold or dampness provision. The mold or dampness provision is vague and will likely lead to abuse. First, there is mold everywhere. While expert witnesses routinely testify about the level of exposure that is unacceptable, no generally accepted medical standards for an unacceptable level of mold exposure currently exist, and each person reacts to mold differently. There is no requirement in the bill that mold exposure exceed levels that are generally considered harmful by experts in the field, or even in excess of naturally occurring background levels. Second, some sources estimate that there are over 100,000 different species of mold. No harmful effects have been shown for many species of mold, while other species of mold are considered harmful. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steve Heisdorffer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. Heisdorffer may be contacted at heisdorffer@hhmrlaw.com

    Tokyo Tackles Flood Control as Typhoons Swamp Subways

    August 20, 2014 —
    Below the condos and boutiques of Tokyo’s upscale Minato ward -- which includes Roppongi Hills, home to Goldman Sachs Group’s Japan headquarters -- a boring machine has carved out the city’s newest defense against floods. “There are many buildings, there’s a freeway,” said Satoshi Yamamoto, who’s directing the Tokyo government’s 24.5 billion yen ($240 million) project to build a giant subterranean reservoir -- the city’s second of three -- to handle flood waters from the Furukawa river that winds through the area. “We decided the best approach was to go underground.” When it’s completed in 2016, the 3.3-kilometer (2-mile) reservoir will be able to handle 135,000 cubic meters of water, enough to fill 54 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Tokyo is becoming increasingly reliant on this solution as more typhoons hit the country each year, a trend that Yamamoto said may be linked to global warming. The flooding is exacerbated by the city’s sprawling concrete footprint that keeps rainwater from seeping safely into the ground. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jacob Adelman, Bloomberg
    Mr. Adelman may be contacted at jadelman1@bloomberg.net

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Title Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    February 01, 2022 —
    In a rare title insurance dispute before the federal district court in Hawaii, the court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment while granting the insured's motion for summary judgment. First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. GS Industries, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240601 (D. Haw. Dec. 16, 2021). GS Industries, LLC took ownership of a parcel of real property located fronting Waipa Lane in Honolulu. The property used four buildings and a parking area for 50 cars. GS obtained a title insurance policy from First American. The policy insured GS' fee simple interest in the property in the amount of $3,500,000. The policy insured GS "against loss or damage, not exceeding $3,500,000, sustained or incurred by GS by reason of . . . not right of access to and from the land,." The policy did not identify any issues with access to the property and did not define "access." A portion of Waipa Lane was owned by the City and County of Honolulu. Parcel 86 and Parcel 91 on Waipa Lane were privately owned. (Private Waipa Lane Parcels). Vehicular access to (ingress) and from (egress) the property was via Waipa Lane. Ingress was made via the publicly owned portion of Waipa Lane. Vehicular egress was made via the Private Waipa Lane Parcels. The City of Honolulu maintained the Private Waipa Lane Parcels and considered them to be pubic. None of the owners of Parcels 86 or 91 notified GS of their intent to block the use of Waipa Lane. 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