BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture 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


    Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations

    When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    CDJ’s #2 Topic of the Year: Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 Tex. LEXIS 39 (Tex. Jan.17, 2014)

    Sales of New Homes in U.S. Increased 5.4% in July to 507,000

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

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

    Peckar & Abramson Once Again Recognized Among Construction Executive’s “Top 50 Construction Law Firms™”

    Why Ethiopia’s $5 Billion Dam Has Riled Its Neighbors

    #4 CDJ Topic: Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.

    California to Require Disclosure of Construction Defect Claims

    No Coverage for Additional Insured for Construction Defect Claim

    Connecticut Appellate Court Breaks New Ground on Policy Exhaustion

    A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

    LaGuardia Airport Is a Mess. An Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager Has a Fix

    Employee Handbooks—Your First Line of Defense

    Personal Thoughts on Construction Mediation

    Previously Owned U.S. Home Sales Rise to Eight-Month High

    Environmental Roundup – April 2019

    Bank Sues over Defective Windows

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”

    California Appellate Court Rules That Mistakenly Grading the Wrong Land Is Not an Accident

    Where Mechanic’s Liens and Contracts Collide

    Construction Wall Falls, Hurts Three

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”

    Minneapolis Condo Shortage Blamed on Construction Defect Law

    What Cal/OSHA’s “Permanent” COVID Standards Mean for Employers

    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

    Nebraska Court Ruling Backs Latest Keystone XL Pipeline Route

    Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost

    Construction Laborers Sue Contractors Over Wage Theft

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Coverage for Post-Completion Defects

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/8/24) – Hotel Labor Disputes, a Congressional Real Estate Caucus and Freddie Mac’s New Policies

    Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

    Liquidated Damages Clause Not Enforced

    Meet Orange County Bar Associations 2024 Leaders

    Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

    A Classic Blunder: Practical Advice for Avoiding Two-Front Wars

    Savera Sandhu Joins Newmeyer Dillion As Partner

    New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

    Balfour Taps Qinetiq’s Quinn as new CEO to Revamp Builder

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces Three New Partners

    Traub Lieberman Elects New Partners for 2020

    A Place to Study Eternity: Building the Giant Magellan Telescope

    New York Revises Retainage Requirements for Private Construction Contracts: Overview of the “5% Retainage Law”

    Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits

    Singapore Unveils Changes to Make Public Housing More Affordable

    The Murky Waters Between "Good Faith" and "Bad Faith"
    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. Drawing 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

    Condominium's Agent Owes No Duty to Injured Apartment Owner

    August 28, 2023 —
    The court granted the agent's motion to dismiss claims asserted by a condominium owner's claim for injuries due to a fire in his unit. Great Am. Allliance Ins. Co. v. Village Gardens Homeowners Association, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102900 (C.D. Calif. June 12, 2023). Village Gardens' agent, Roy Palacios Insurance Company, obtained umbrella and excess policies from Great American for apartment buildings located on the property. In obtaining the policies, Village Gardens represented to Great American through Palacios that the property's roof, HVAC, plumbing and electrical systems had been updated. On Febaruary 16, 2019, the apartment in which Vicencio Flores resided caught fire, causing him to suffer severe burns. Flores alleged that the fire was caused by Village Gardens' "improper construction, use of poor construction materials and negligent maintenance of the property." 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

    New Jersey Construction Worker Sentenced for Home Repair Fraud

    October 22, 2013 —
    Marcin Gradziel, who formerly worked for a construction company in Camden County, New Jersey, has been sentenced to seven years in state prison for insurance fraud. Mr. Gradziel admitted to creating fraudulent property damage claims, which he did for Precision Network Solutions, which did business as Precision Builders. Mr. Gradziel and others went through neighborhoods telling residents that their roofs or siding were damaged by hail and that they could get their homes repaired at no cost. Mr. Gradziel would then return to create damage before the inspectors arrived. Another employee, Dominik Sadowski, previously plead guilty, as did Precision Builders. The firm paid out $68,720 in restitution and is now out of business. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    August 20, 2018 —
    Danny the Developer wishes to build Greenacre, a large residential and retail condominium complex in downtown Boston. However, Danny’s lender – the Bank of Barbara – will not lend Danny the money to develop the complex unless Danny’s architect signs a lender certificate. Danny presents the lender certificate to Allie the Architect, the certificate is relatively short and simple, it states:
    “Allie the Architect prepared plans and specifications relating to Greenacre. Allie the Architect certifies that the plans are in accordance with all applicable zoning, building, housing and other laws, ordinances, regulations including but not limited to the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, and the Americans with Disability Act. The Plans do not encroach over, across or upon any such easements, rights-of-way, or subsurface rights and the like. Allie further certifies that the load bearing capacity of the soil is adequate to support the plans. The Bank of Barbara shall rely upon Allie the Architects certification in loaning money to Danny the Developer for Greenacre.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jacob Goodelman, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Goodelman may be contacted at jgoodelman@grsm.com

    Formal Request for Time Extension Not Always Required to Support Constructive Acceleration

    April 25, 2022 —
    Does a constructive acceleration claim require the contractor to always request an extension of time which is then denied by the owner? While this is certainly the preference and the contractor should be requesting an extension of time as a matter of course for an excusable delay, the answer is NO! in certain circumstances. This is conveyed in the factually detailed case discussed below where a formal request for an extension of time was not required for the contractor to support its constructive acceleration claim. But first, what is constructive acceleration: Constructive acceleration “occurs when the government demands compliance with an original contract deadline, despite excusable delay by the contractor.” The Federal Circuit in Fraser defined the elements of constructive acceleration as follows: (1) that the contractor encountered a delay that is excusable under the contract; (2) that the contractor made a timely and sufficient request for an extension of the contract schedule; (3) that the government denied the contractor’s request for an extension or failed to act on it within a reasonable time; (4) that the government insisted on completion of the contract within a period shorter than the period to which the contractor would be entitled by taking into account the period of excusable delay, after which the contractor notified the government that it regarded the alleged order to accelerate as a constructive change in the contract; and (5) that the contractor was required to expend extra resources to compensate for the lost time and remain on schedule. Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. U.S., 2022 WL 815826, *42 (Fed.Cl. 2022) quoting Fraser Constr. Co. v. U.S., 384 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Prefabrication Contract Considerations

    March 08, 2021 —
    Prefabrication (also referred to as modular construction in instances), is a form of offsite construction where certain construction activities occur at an offsite manufacturing facility or location. Construction components or units are preassembled (prefabricated) at this offsite location prior to being delivered to the project site and then integrated into the project. When preparing a prefabrication contract (including a prefabrication subcontract), there are a number of complex considerations that need to be weighed, and these considerations are bullet-pointed below. The purpose of these bullet-points is to give you considerations to discuss and vet when preparing, negotiating, and agreeing to a prefabrication contract or subcontract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Breaking News: Connecticut Supreme Court Decides Significant Coverage Issues in R.T. Vanderbilt

    December 16, 2019 —
    On October 4, 2019 (almost two years after granting certification), the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s rulings on four key coverage issues in R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, et al. The coverage dispute in Vanderbilt concerns underlying actions alleging that talc and silica mined and sold by the insured contained asbestos and/or caused asbestos-related disease. The case has been proceeding in phases, two of which have been tried to date, resulting in the matter on appeal. (1) “Continuous Trigger” Theory of Coverage Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s opinion applying a “continuous trigger” for the underlying claims at issue, and agreed that the trial court properly excluded testimony from medical experts the insurers had proffered to prove that the asbestos disease process did not support a continuous trigger. (2) The “Unavailability of Insurance” Exception to Time-on-Risk Pro Rata Allocation Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s ruling that (a) damages and defense costs should not be allocated to any period in which insurance was “unavailable” in the market, (b) the insurers bear the burden of proving that coverage for asbestos liabilities was available to the policyholder after the date asbestos exclusions were added to the policies and (c) the insured bears the burden of proving that it was unable to obtain asbestos coverage prior to 1986 (when such insurance was generally available). The Appellate Court recognized that, in certain circumstances, there could be an “equitable exception” to the unavailability rule if the insured continued to manufacture products containing asbestos after 1986 with the knowledge that such products were hazardous and uninsurable (circumstances which the court found were not present in this case). Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and Ciaran B. Way, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    What Makes Building Ventilation Good Enough to Withstand a Pandemic?

    January 11, 2021 —
    In October, students at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, held an intimate jazz concert at a bar downtown, with an audience of about 20 peers and faculty members — all of whom held digital passes indicating they’d recently tested negative for Covid-19. Two jazz ensembles performed, sometimes with masks and coverings for their instruments, and other times without. Behind the scenes, mechanical engineering professor Ty Newell tinkered with the airflow, turning the exhaust and recirculation fans on and off at different points during the night. His students monitored for changes in the air quality, using a special instrument to measure the concentrations of carbon dioxide and fine particulate matter, both key to determining if a building is well ventilated. The experiment sought to highlight the significance of proper ventilation, something that Newell said hadn’t been paid enough attention, until now. As evidence suggesting Covid-19 can spread through aerosol transmission continues to mount, health experts are focused less on sanitizing surfaces and more on improving indoor air quality. In December, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finally put out its ventilation recommendations to combat Covid-19, based on standards set by ASHRAE, or the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Linda Poon, Bloomberg

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    December 02, 2015 —
    In Dominguez v. Hayward Industries, Inc., Certified Gunite Company d/b/a Custom Pools, and John M. Pieklo, — So.3d —-, 2015 WL 5438782 (3d DCA Sept. 16, 2015), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, discussed whether products liability claims related to a pool filter, a component part of a pool system, were subject to Florida’s twelve-year products liability statute of repose, section 95.031, Florida Statutes. The court held that a pool filter does not constitute an improvement to real property and, thus, the plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the statute of repose. Background Facts Ryan and Jessica Dominguez had a pool installed at their house; the delivery and installation of the pool and its filter were completed on December 20, 1999. Over twelve years later – on November 17, 2012 – the pool filter exploded, causing Mr. Dominguez a severe head injury. Mr. Dominguez and his wife brought a products liability action against, among others, the pool filter manufacturer and distributor, Hayward Industries, Inc., and the installer of the pool and intermediate distributor of the pool filter, Certified Gunite Company. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com