BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer 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


    Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits

    City of Birmingham Countersues Contractor for Incomplete Work

    Congratulations 2016 DE, NJ, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    L.A. Mixes Grit With Glitz in Downtown Revamp: Cities

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- A Wrap Up

    Construction of New U.S. Homes Declines on Plunge in South

    AI – A Designer’s Assistant or a Replacement?

    Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

    What to Do Before OSHA Comes Knocking

    Is It Time to Get Rid of Retainage?

    Getting U.S to Zero Carbon Will Take a $2.5 Trillion Investment by 2030

    Even Fraud in the Inducement is Tough in Construction

    LA’s $1.2 Billion Graffiti Towers Put on Sale After Bankruptcy

    Construction Defect Litigation in Nevada Called "Out of Control"

    An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar

    “Based On”… What Exactly? NJ Appellate Division Examines Phrase and Estops Insurer From Disclaiming Coverage for 20-Month Delay

    Project Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Recording Deadline

    Structural Defects Lead Schools to Close off Areas

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    Home Building Up in Kansas City

    Discussion of the Discovery Rule and Tolling Statute of Limitations

    South Carolina Supreme Court Requires Transparency by Rejecting an Insurer’s “Cut-and-Paste” Reservation of Rights

    California Supreme Court Declines Request to Expand Exceptions to Privette Doctrine for Known Hazards

    Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations

    A Court-Side Seat: A Poultry Defense, a Houston Highway and a CERCLA Consent Decree that Won’t Budge

    "Occurrence" May Include Intentional Acts In Montana

    Florida’s Fourth District Appeals Court Clarifies What Actions Satisfy Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc.

    Ohio: Are Construction Defects Covered in Insurance Policies?

    New Megablimp to Deliver to Remote Alaskan Construction Sites

    Notice of Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Deadline

    3 Common Cash Flow Issues That Plague The Construction Industry

    Jury Finds Broker Liable for Policyholder’s Insufficient Business Interruption Limits

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

    Yet ANOTHER Reminder to Always Respond

    Is the Sky Actually Falling (on Green Building)?

    When Do You Call Your Lawyer?

    EPA Looks to Reduce Embodied Carbon in Materials With $160M in Grants

    New Hampshire’s Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property Does Not Apply to Product Manufacturers

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    Home Prices Up in Metro Regions

    Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

    Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Design-Assist Collaboration/Follow-up Post

    "Ordinance or Law" Provision Mandates Coverage for Roof Repair

    Fifth Circuit Decision on Number of Occurrences Underscores Need to Carefully Tailor Your Insurance Program
    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

    SFAA Commends U.S. House for Passage of Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    November 15, 2021 —
    November 8, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA), a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association representing all segments of the surety and fidelity industry, commends the U.S. House for passing the historic, bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The $1.2 trillion deal will lay the foundation for extensive improvements in the nation’s roadways, bridges, railways, waterways and broadband. “Both sides of the aisle understand the importance of investing in our country’s aging infrastructure. The passage of this historic bill provides the most significant resources in more than 50 years to address the current and future needs of our country’s infrastructure, while creating millions of jobs and growing our national and local economies,” said SFAA president and CEO, Lee Covington. SFAA also commends President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) for their leadership on this bill, and members of the House who voted in favor. The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association representing all segments of the surety and fidelity industry. Based in Washington, D.C., SFAA works to promote the value of surety and fidelity bonding by proactively advocating on behalf of its members and stakeholders. The association’s more than 450 member companies write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. For more information visit www.surety.org. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Holds That Trimming of Neighbor’s Trees is Not an Insured Accident or Occurrence

    June 10, 2015 —
    In Albert v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. (No. B257792, filed 4/28/15, ord. pub. 5/20/15), a California Court of Appeal held that an insured’s trimming of a neighbor’s trees which allegedly damaged the trees was not an accident or occurrence covered by her homeowners insurance, despite a mistaken and good faith belief as to where the property line lay. Ms. Albert was sued by her adjoining neighbor, who alleged damage to his property when she erected an encroaching fence and pruned nine mature olive trees on his property. The two parcels shared a reciprocal roadway easement providing for access to the main public road. At some point, Ms. Albert erected a fence that was subsequently determined to be on the neighbor’s land, and which enclosed a grove of nine mature olive trees. Ms. Albert claimed that the trees straddled the property line and were mutually owned. She pointed out that she had regularly been notified by the Los Angeles Fire Department to clear the area, and that she had been trimming the trees for years. Thus, she claimed a good faith belief that the trees were hers and that she was required to trim them. Contending that her trimming had caused severe damage by reducing the aesthetic and monetary value of the trees, the neighbor sued alleging causes of action for trespass to real property and trees; abatement of private nuisance; declaratory relief; and for quiet title. He sought treble damages under Civil Code sections 733 and 3346, for injury to timber or trees. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    October 28, 2011 —

    The Eleventh District of the US Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Nix v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. In this case, the Nixes filed a claim after a portion of the retaining wall in their home collapsed and their basement flooded. State Farm denied the claim “on the ground that the policy excluded coverage for collapses caused by defects in construction and for damage caused by groundwater.”

    The court reviewed the Nixes’ policy and found that State Farm’s statement did specifically exclude both of these items. In reviewing the lower court’s ruling, the appeals court noted that State Farm’s expert witness, Mark Voll, determined that the retaining wall “lacked reinforcing steel, as required by a local building code, and could not withstand the pressure created by groundwater that had accumulated during a heavy rainfall.” Additionally, a french drain had been covered with clay soil and so had failed to disperse the groundwater.

    The Nixes argued that the flooding was due to a main line water pipe, but their opinions were those of Terry Nix and the contractor who made temporary repairs to the wall. “Those opinions were not admissible as lay testimony. Neither Nix nor the contractor witnessed the wall collapse or had personal knowledge about the construction of the Nixes’ home.”

    The lower court granted a summary judgment to State Farm which has been upheld by the appeals court.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Bay Area Counties Issue Less Restrictive “Shelter in Place” Orders, Including for Construction

    May 04, 2020 —
    The short story: Construction can resume. The long story: Construction can resume beginning Monday, May 4, 2020, with extensive and detailed restrictions. Six Bay Area Counties Loosen Shelter-in-Place Restrictions Including Allowing Construction to Resume Earlier this week, six Bay Area counties and the City of Berkeley issued new orders requiring the use of face coverings when in public. The six Bay Area counties, which also happen to be the first counties in the nation to issue shelter-in-place orders, are Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara. When do the revised shelter-in-place orders take effect? The revised shelter-in-place orders take effect at 11:59 p.m. on May 3, 2020 and will remain in effect until 11:59 p.m. on May 31, 2020 unless extended, rescinded, superseded, or amended. Thus, effectively, the new orders take effect on Monday, May 4, 2020. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Insurer Doomed in Delaware by the Sutton Rule

    September 12, 2023 —
    In Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thangavel, No. 379, 2022, 2023 Del. LEXIS 227, the Supreme Court of Delaware (Supreme Court) considered whether the Sutton Rule prevented the plaintiff from pursuing subrogation against the defendants. As applied in Delaware, the Sutton Rule explains that landlords and tenants are co-insureds under the landlord’s fire insurance policy unless a tenant’s lease clearly expresses an intent to the contrary. If the Sutton Rule applies, the landlord’s insurer cannot pursue the tenant for the landlord’s damages by way of subrogation. Here, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the Sutton Rule applied because the lease did not clearly express an intent to hold the tenants liable for the landlord’s damages. In Thangavel, the plaintiff, Donegal Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), provided property insurance to Seaford Apartment Ventures, LLC (Landlord) for a residential property in Delaware. Sathiyaselvam Thangavel and Sasikala Muthusamy (Tenants) leased an apartment (the Premises) from Landlord and signed a lease. Insurer alleged that Tenants hit a sprinkler head while flying a drone inside the Premises which caused water to spray from the damaged sprinkler head, resulting in property damage to the Premises. Landlord filed an insurance claim with Insurer, who paid Landlord $77,704.06 to repair the damage. Insurer then sought to recover the repair costs from Tenants via subrogation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Katherine Dempsey, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Dempsey may be contacted at dempseyk@whiteandwilliams.com

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    February 10, 2012 —

    The Hartford Courant reports that Connecticut is trying a very old tactic in a construction defect suit. The law library building at the University of Connecticut suffered from leaks which have now been repaired. The state waited twelve years after was complete to file lawsuit, despite that Connecticut has a six-year statute of limitations on construction defect claims. Connecticut claims that the statute of limitations does apply to the state.

    The state is arguing that a legal principle from the thirteenth century allows it to go along with its suit. As befits a medieval part of common law, the principle is called “nullum tempus occurrit regi,” or “time does not run against the king.” In 1874, the American Law Register said that nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae “has been adopted in every one of the United States” and “is now firmly established law.”

    In the case of Connecticut, Connecticut Solicitor General Gregory D’Auria said that “the statute of limitations does not apply to the state.” He also noted that “the state did not ‘wait’ to file the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed only after all other options and remedies were exhausted.”

    Connecticut also argued that “nullus tempus occurrit regi” applied in another construction defect case at the York Correctional Institution. The judge in that case ruled in December 2008 to let the case proceed. But in the library case, Judge William T. Cremins ruled in February 2009 that the statute of limitations should apply to the state as well. Both cases have been appealed, with the library case moving more quickly toward the Connecticut Supreme Court.

    Read the full story…

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

    Construction Industry Survey Says Optimism Hits All-Time High

    March 26, 2014 —
    The Nashville Business Journal reported that “construction optimism has been growing exponentially since it hit an all-time low in 2009.” Furthermore, “Wells Fargo's 2014 Construction Industry Forecast saw the Optimism Quotient rise to an all-time high of 124 after a survey that was performed in January.” Reasons for the rise, according to Wells Fargo National Sales Manager John Crum, include “more capital available from banks, more public jobs and state and local governments being able to shore up their money supplies,” as quoted by the Nashville Business Journal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pillsbury Insights – Navigating the Real Estate Market During COVID-19

    July 06, 2020 —
    Until COVID-19 officially took hold in the U.S. in March of 2020, the U.S. real estate market was active, even robust. Starting in March, however, the possible scope of the pandemic and the sudden imposition of stay-at-home orders resulted in deal volume falling precipitously—with sales, leasing and lending transactions being put on temporary “wait and see” pause or terminated altogether. The impact of COVID-19 on the real estate market has not been felt evenly. Hotels have been hit extremely hard, with many hotels shuttered altogether and many others only open at staggeringly low occupancy rates. Retail likewise has been virtually shut down in various parts of the country—with retailers across the country asking for rental forbearance or lease surrenders and others, such as J Crew, Neiman Marcus and Pier 1, pursuing bankruptcy reorganizations or liquidation. Multifamily has also been relatively hard hit, and landlords are having to navigate a web of local, state, and even federal regulations regarding tenant protections, such as non-eviction orders. The least affected sector so far has been office—however employers and office space users who are becoming facile with zoom and “working at home” may well re-examine their usage of office space—and it is within the realm of possibility to imagine that even this sector may come under pressure over time. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Caroline A. Harcourt, Pillsbury
    Ms. Harcourt may be contacted at caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com