BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut hospital construction 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


    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Slower Pace in May

    The Johnstown Dam Failure, as Seen in the Pages of ENR in 1889

    Ninth Circuit Rules Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test of Implied Certification under the False Claims Act Mandatory

    Scaffolding Purchase Suggests No New Building for Board of Equalization

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

    Lis Pendens – Recordation and Dissolution

    Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy

    Claims Made Insurance Policies

    Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents

    “Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)

    Design-Build Contracting for County Road Projects

    CDJ’s #4 Topic of the Year: KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County

    Design Immunity Does Not Shield Public Entity From Claim That it Failed to Warn of a Dangerous Condition

    Appraisal Process Analyzed

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    Denver Officials Clamor for State Construction Defect Law

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 12 CD Topics of 2015

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    The Unthinkable Has Happened. How Should Contractors Respond?

    Local Government’s Claims on Developer Bonds Dismissed for Failure to Pursue Administrative Remedies

    Neither Designated Work Exclusion nor Pre-Existing Damage Exclusion Defeat Duty to Defend

    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Honors Construction Attorney

    Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

    President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

    Policy's Limitation Period for Seeking Replacement Costs Not Enforced Where Unreasonable

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    Colorado Supreme Court Weighs in on Timeliness of Claims Against Subcontractors in Construction Defect Actions

    Be Wary of Construction Defects when Joining a Community Association

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    2017 California Construction Law Update

    Designing a Fair Standard of Care in Design Agreements

    Bay Area Firm Offers Construction Consulting to Remodels

    Proposed Changes to Federal Lease Accounting Standards

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    Quick Note: Don’t Forget To Serve The Contractor Final Payment Affidavit

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Duty to Defend When Case Law is Uncertain

    Indemnity Clauses That Conflict with Oregon Indemnity Statute Can Remain Partially Valid and Enforceable

    New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that Subcontractor Work with Resultant Damage is both an “Occurrence” and “Property Damage” under a Standard Form CGL Policy

    Philadelphia Proposed Best Value Procurement Bill

    $6 Million in Punitive Damages for Chinese Drywall

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment in Pinellas County Circuit Court

    Florida trigger

    Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

    Construction Spending Drops in March

    Handling Construction Defect Claims – New Edition Released

    Time to Repair Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws?

    Minnesota Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade for the Second Time

    Existence of “Duty” in Negligence Action is Question of Law

    NYC-N.J. Gateway Rail-Tunnel Work May Start in 2023

    Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law
    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

    Texas Court Requires Insurer to Defend GC Despite Breach of Contract Exclusion

    December 19, 2018 —
    In Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Slay Engineering, et al.,1 a Texas federal court ruled in favor of a general contractor, finding that its insurer had a duty to defend it in a construction defect case filed by the owner. The decision adds more clarity to the interpretation of the subcontractor exception to the “Damage to Your Work” exclusion as well as the Breach of Contract exclusion, which has been the subject of several cases coming out of Texas over the past decade. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Cooper may be contacted at alc@sdvlaw.com

    A New Hope - You Now May Have Coverage for Punitive Damages in Connecticut

    February 15, 2018 —

    On December 19, 2017, the Connecticut Supreme Court released its decision in Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Pasiak. The decision is significant for two reasons: 1) it clarifies the amount of proof an insurer needs to determine whether an exclusion to coverage applies; and 2) it found that where an insurance policy expressly provides coverage for an intentional act such as false imprisonment, common-law punitive damages are also covered.

    Underlying action

    The underlying action proves that real life is often stranger than fiction. Ms. S worked as an office help for a construction company owned by Mr. P, which operated out of his home. Ms. S was working alone in the home office, when an armed, masked intruder entered the office, tied her hands, gagged and blindfolded her and, pointing a gun to her head, threatened to kill her family if she did not give him the combination to a safe in the home. As this was happening, Mr. P entered the office, unmasked the intruder, and discovered it was his lifelong friend. After Ms. S was untied, she asked to leave, but Mr. P told her to stay. She was not allowed to leave for several hours as Mr. P made her accompany him to an errand. Ms. S sued Mr. P for false imprisonment, among other things. The trial court awarded her compensatory and punitive damages. Insurance coverage for the underlying judgment is at the heart of the Pasiak case.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Szantova Giordano may be contacted at ssg@sdvlaw.com

    Massachusetts Clarifies When the Statute of Repose is Triggered For a Multi-Phase or Multi-Building Project

    December 07, 2020 —
    Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC (“Lennar”) built a twenty-eight-building, 150-unit condominium project containing twenty-four discrete phases over a seven-year span. The condominium association subsequently brought an action against Lennar and others alleging design and construction defects to four main components of the common elements: “decks and columns,” “roofing/flashing,” “exterior walls/flashing/building envelope,” and “irrigation system.” In response, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s claims with respect to six of the twenty- eight buildings were barred by Massachusetts’s six-year statute of repose, G. L. c. 206 § 2B. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts previously held that all twenty-eight of the condominium’s buildings should be treated as a single improvement for purposes of application of the statute of repose. Subsequently, the court certified the following question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Where the factual record supports the conclusion that a builder or developer was engaged in the continuous construction of a single condominium development comprising multiple buildings or phases, when does the six-year period for an action of tort relating to the construction of the condominium’s common or limited common elements start running? Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Developer Transition - Maryland Condominiums

    June 21, 2017 —
    INTRODUCTION “Developer transition” is the process by which the governance of a condominium association is transferred from developer to unit owner control. This article provides a brief overview of the legal requirements that govern the developer transition process for Maryland condominiums. This article also as well as a “transition checklist” for transitioning unit owner-controlled boards of directors. PERIOD OF DEVELOPER CONTROL A developer initially controls an association because it owns all unsold units in the newly created condominium community. As such, the developer has the controlling votes associated with majority ownership and can appoint its own employees as the initial members of the board of directors and thereby control how the condominium association conducts its affairs. This is referred to as the “period of developer control,” during which the developer makes all decisions on behalf of the association. The developer also creates an association’s governing documents, allowing it to dictate, subject to applicable law, the procedures and time periods under which control over the association’s board of directors will eventually be transferred to the homeowners. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

    Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

    February 02, 2017 —
    A customer shopping at Walmart’s outdoor garden center in Clarkston, Washington, reached down to brush aside a stick covering a price tag for bags of mulch stored on wooden pallets. The “stick” turned out to be a rattlesnake, and bit his hand. The customer sued Walmart on the legal basis of “premises liability,” claiming that as Walmart’s business invitee (one who enters the owner’s property primarily for the owner’s benefit), the store owed him a duty to warn or guard against hazardous conditions such as the rattlesnake. In many cases, a property owner’s duty to protect invitees applies only where the owner knows or reasonably should know of the hazardous condition. The owner’s liability therefore often hinges on where the hazard is located, how long it has been present, whether it has occurred in the past, and similar considerations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James R. Lynch, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
    Mr. Lynch may be contacted at jlynch@ac-lawyers.com

    Incorporate Sustainability in Building Design to Meet Green Construction Goals

    September 25, 2018 —
    A few miles outside the city limits of Austin, Texas, construction work is expected to soon begin on the Austin Ridge Bible Church’s tri-level, 80,000-square-foot building. The building will house a 2,500-seat sanctuary, classrooms and other spaces where congregants can gather for prayer and fellowship. When the project is completed, scheduled for the end of 2019, it will produce a worship place that will significantly reduce the building’s energy costs in the years ahead. Reprinted courtesy of Norma Lehman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractual Warranty Agreements May Preclude Future Tort Recovery

    January 11, 2022 —
    When a buyer purchases a product that is later discovered to be defective, the court offers a remedy to make the buyer whole. Such remedies can arise either out of a contract, including express and/or implied warranties, or under common law through a tort theory. However, what happens when a buyer has already received the remedy specified in the contractual warranty, only to discover the product manufacturer misrepresented the quality of its product by failing to disclose a defect? Can the buyer subsequently recover for the same product under a tort theory of recovery? The Colorado Court of Appeals analyzed such questions in its December 2021 decision in Dream Finders Homes, LLC v. Weyerhaeuser NR Co., 2021 COA 143. In Dream Finders, the court examines the rights of sophisticated buyers who purchased defective products and received a warranty from the product manufacturer with purchase. The court specifically determines whether such buyers may recover under the tort theory product misrepresentation and failure to disclose when the buyers have already received the remedy specified and the warranty expressly excludes the type of damage the buyer now seeks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Taylor Ostrowski, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Ms. Ostrowski may be contacted at ostrowski@hhmrlaw.com

    Consult with Counsel when Preparing Construction Liens

    April 13, 2017 —
    All too often entities prepare their own construction liens. Sure, it is an effective way to save a few bucks. No doubt about it. But, by doing so, you are (i) not relying on advice of counsel that is important when it comes to lien preparation and (ii) not relying on strategy that goes along with the preparation of a lien. When you are liening, the reason you are doing so is because you have not been paid. You therefore want to collateralize your nonpayment against the real property—the leverage of a construction lien. This is a very beneficial statutory tool if implemented correctly, so it only makes sense to do it “strategically” right. A construction lien is a statutory form. So, how hard can it be? Filling out the “form” is not hard, however, there is legal significance to the information and amounts included in a lien. For instance:
    • There is significance to the amount you are liening. Are you liening for disputed change order work? Are you liening for amounts unrelated to base contract work?
    • There is significance to the final furnishing date. Are you liening within 90 days of performing base contract work unrelated to punchlist or warranty work?
    • There is significance to date the Notice to Owner was served (if you are not in privity with the owner). Was the Notice to Owner served within 45 days of initial furnishing?
    • There is significance to the legal description identified in the lien. Are you liening the right property based on the type of project you are working on?
    • There can even be significance to the initial furnishing date. Assuming you are the general contractor, what was your initial furnishing date in comparison with when the Notice of Commencement was recorded? If you are not a general contractor, when was the initial furnishing date in comparison with when you served the Notice to Owner?
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com