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


    Eleventh Circuit Holds that EPA Superfund Remedial Actions are Usually Entitled to the FTCA “Discretionary Function” Exemption

    Loan Modifications Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: FDIC Answers CARES Act FAQs

    Year and a Half Old Las Vegas VA Emergency Room Gets Rebuilt

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (06/28/23) – Combating Homelessness, U.S. Public Transportation Costs and the Future of Commercial Real Estate

    Dump Site Provider Has Valid Little Miller Act Claim

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    Standard For Evaluating Delay – Directly from An Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeal’s Opinion

    GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    Environmental Suit Against Lockheed Martin Dismissed

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Group Ranked in National Tier 1 by US News & World Report

    Finding of No Coverage Overturned Due to Lack of Actual Policy

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

    Deescalating Hyper Escalation

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    Excess Must Defend After Primary Improperly Refuses to Do So

    Delaware Supreme Court Choice of Law Ruling Vacates a $13.7 Million Verdict Against Travelers

    An Era of Legends

    OSHA Finalizes PPE Fitting Requirement for Construction Workers

    Zombie Foreclosures Plaguing Various Cities in the U.S.

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Based on New Information …”

    Know What You’ve Built: An Interview with Timo Makkonen of Congrid

    U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

    The Double-Breasted Dilemma

    Toll Brothers Report End of Year Results

    Engineer TRC Fends Off Lawsuits After Merger

    Business Interruption Claim Upheld

    The California Privacy Rights Act Passed – Now What?

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Hacking Claim Under E&O Policy

    Proposed Legislation for Losses from COVID-19 and Limitations on the Retroactive Impairment of Contracts

    Unintended Consequences of New Building Products and Services

    The Show Must Go On: Shuttered Venues Operators Grant Provides Lifeline for Live Music and Theater Venues

    Housing in U.S. Cools as Rate Rise Hits Sales: Mortgages

    New Standard Addresses Wind Turbine Construction Safety Requirements and Identifies Hazards

    Congratulations to Woodland Hills Partner Patrick Au and Senior Associate Ava Vahdat on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!

    Policing Those Subcontractors: It Might Take Extra Effort To Be An Additional Insured

    Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

    California Court of Appeal Provides Clarity On What Triggers Supplemental Analysis Under California Environmental Quality Act

    Endorsement Excludes Replacement of Undamaged Property with Matching Materials

    Subcontractor Strength Will Drive Industry’s Ability to Meet Demand, Overcome Challenges

    How Concrete Mistakes Added Cost to the Recent Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge Project

    Home Construction Thriving in Lubbock

    Coverage for Named Windstorm Removed by Insured, Terminating Such Coverage

    Float-In of MassDOT Span Sails, But Delay Dispute Lingers

    Assessing Defective Design Liability on Federal Design-Build Projects

    68 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 5th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

    Congress Passes, President Signs Sweeping Energy Measure In Spend Bill

    A Brief Primer on Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien When the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    Pennsylvania Modernizes State Building Code
    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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Third-Party Defendant

    May 06, 2024 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle won summary judgment in favor of Third-Party Defendant, a general contracting company (the “Contracting Company”), in a personal injury action brought in Suffolk County. In the underlying matter, the Plaintiff—an employee of the Contracting Company—alleged that they sustained injuries from an incident which occurred when they were struck by a skid-steer loader owned by the Co-Defendant masonry company (the “Masonry Company”) and operated by the president and owner of the Co-Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff construction company (the “Construction Company”). The Plaintiff brought claims against the Defendant companies for common law negligence and violations of Labor Law § § 200, 240, and 241, as well as Industrial code (12 NYCRR) subpart 23-2. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa Rolle, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision

    August 27, 2013 —
    In 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that construction defects could count as “occurrences” under a general liability policy. John Watkins, writing in Law360, notes that the ruling “has potentially broad implications for Georgia insureds.” He goes on to look at a later Georgia Supreme Court case, in which the court reaffirmed its decision in the 2011 Hathaway case. In the 2013 case, Taylor Morrison Services Inc. v. HDI-Gerlins Ins., the court held that the property damage had to happen to something other than the work performed by the insured, and that a breaches of warranty without fraud claims may be covered. But Watkins notes that this points to “the continuing efforts of insurers to deny coverage for construction defects under CGL policies.” This overruled some of the past decisions of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Watkins noted that the Eleventh Circuit seemed to wonder about the scope of Hathaway, but with Taylor Morrison, “the Georgia Supreme Court provided a clearly stated response.” Looking at the implications, he gives an example in which if a window installer work causes a window to leak and the water intrusion damages a floor, the floor, but not the window would be covered. But he cautions, “the result may turn on the policy language and the particular facts.” In any case, he assures us that “coverage disputes regarding construction defects are sure to continue.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

    May 12, 2016 —
    In Sanford v. Rasnick, (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dist., No. A145704) the First Appellate District addressed whether a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise requiring plaintiff to execute a release and enter into a separate settlement agreement was valid. Because the settlement agreement could potentially contain additional terms not stated in the CCP 998 Offer, the Court of Appeal held that it was not. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when the 17-year-old Defendant ran a stop sign and struck his motorcycle. Plaintiff sued the 17-year-old and his father (the owner of the vehicle) for vehicular negligence and general negligence. Just after discovery closed, defendants jointly served a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise to plaintiff in the amount of $130,000. The offer contained a condition requiring that in order to accept, plaintiff must provide a “notarized execution and transmittal of a written settlement agreement and general release. Each party will bear its own fees, costs and expenses.” Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    September 30, 2011 —

    In yet another recent construction defect case, the Illinois Court of Appeal found for coverage. See Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 2011 Ill. App. Ct. LEXIS 872 (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2011).

    Weather-Tite, Inc. hired Larson as a subcontractor to apply sealant to windows installed by Weather-Tite in a condominium building. The windows subsequently leaked and caused water damage. The homeowner’s association sued Weather-Tite for breach of express and implied warranties. Weather-Tite filed a third-party complaint against Larsen alleging that, if it was liable to the association for breach of warranty, Larsen was liable for contribution as a joint tortfeasor. Weather-Tite and Larsen both tendered defenses to Milwaukee Insurance. The tenders were denied and Milwaukee Insurance filed suit to determine rights under the policy.

    Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by all parties. The trial court granted Milwaukee Insurance’s summary judgment motion as to Weather-Tite, but granted Larsen’s cross-motion against Milwaukee Insurance.

    On appeal, the appellate court considered whether the underlying pleadings alleged facts demonstrating "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence" within the terms of the policy.

    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

    San Francisco Bucks U.S. Trend With Homeownership Gains

    September 24, 2014 —
    Homeownership climbed in a small number of U.S. metropolitan areas last year including San Francisco; Nashville, Tennessee; and Austin, Texas, where strong job growth helped them buck the national trend. Of 100 metropolitan areas, 17 had an increase in the “true” ownership rate, which measures the number of owner-occupied households per 100 adult residents, according to an analysis by Trulia Inc. of Census Bureau data. Even in those areas, advances were small. San Francisco had the biggest gain in 2013, rising about 0.6 percentage points from a year earlier, the property-information company said today. The Gary, Indiana, region, made up mostly of suburbs, had a similar increase. The homeownership rate has been falling in much of the U.S. as incomes stagnate and rising prices make housing less affordable and more difficult to finance for entry-level buyers. The regions where the rate is up include strong job markets such as San Francisco and Austin, and areas with stable prices such as Albany, New York, that were spared the brunt of the nationwide foreclosure crisis, Trulia said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

    New California "Construction" Legislation

    November 08, 2018 —

    Governor Jerry Brown signed two potentially impactful Senate Bills relating to the construction of apartment buildings late last month. These Bills, discussed further below, were introduced, in part, in response to the Berkeley balcony collapse in June 2015, which was determined by the California Contractors State License Board to be caused by the failure of severely rotted structural support joists the repair of which were deferred by the property manager, despite indications of water damage.

    SENATE BILL 721 ESTABLISHES HEIGHTENED “LOAD-BEARING” INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

    On August 21, 2018, the California State Senate passed SB 721, one of two bills by Senator Jerry Hill introduced this year seeking to address the safety of multifamily rental residences. Now that the Governor has signed the Bill, a new section will be added to the California Health and Safety Code, requiring that every 6 years, destructive testing be performed on at least 15% of each type of load-bearing, wood framed exterior elevated element (such as balconies, walkways, and stair landings) in apartment buildings with 3 or more units. Interestingly, prior to being passed by the State Senate, SB 721 was revised in June 2018, such that the inspection requirements do not apply to common interest developments (i.e., condominiums).

    As set forth in the new Health and Safety Code Section 17973:

    "the purpose of the inspection is to determine that exterior elevated elements and their associated waterproofing elements are in a generally safe condition, adequate working order, and free from any hazardous condition caused by fungus, deterioration, decay, or improper alteration to the extent that the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants is not endangered."

    The inspection must be paid for by the building owner and performed by a licensed contractor, architect, or civil or structural engineer, or a certified building inspector or building official from a recognized state, national, or international association. Emergency repairs identified by the inspector must be made immediately. For non-emergency repairs, a permit must be applied for within 120 days and the repair completed within 120 days of the permit’s issuance. If repairs are not completed within 180 days, civil penalties of $100-$500 per day may be imposed.

    The required inspection must be completed by January 1, 2025 and every 6 years thereafter, unless an equivalent inspection was performed during the 3 years prior to January 1, 2019, the effective date of the new law. For a building converted to condominiums that will be sold after January 1, 2019, the inspection required by Health and Safety Code Section 17973, must be performed prior to the first close of escrow.

    SENATE BILL 1465 SETS CONTRACTOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

    The Governor also signed SB 1465, adding Sections 7071.20, 7071.21, and 7071.22 to the California Business and Professions Code. The new law requires that a contractor licensed with the Contractors’ State License Board "report to the registrar in writing within 90 days after the licensee has knowledge of any civil action resulting in a final judgment, executed settlement agreement, or final arbitration award in which the licensee is named as a defendant or crossdefendant, filed on or after January 1, 2019," that meets certain and specific criteria, including that it is over $1 million and arises out of an action for damages to a property or person allegedly caused by specified construction activities of the contractor on a multifamily rental residential structure.

    Where more than one contractor was named as a defendant or cross-defendant, each of the contractors apportioned more than $15,000 in liability must report the action. Importantly, the new statute also imposes similar reporting requirements on insurers of contractors. SB 1465 also addresses an impacted party’s failure to comply with the reporting requirements.

    COMMENT

    Both SB 721 and SB 1465 are potentially significant and seek “legislative reform” to address construction issues by placing a greater burden on apartment owners as well as builders and subcontractors. How pragmatic and what impact they will have on the industry is obviously developing. If you are interested in receiving further detail concerning the Bills, please contact us. We are analyzing the new legislation and its intent and will be providing our ongoing comments.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of RICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ. CHELSEA L. ZWART, ESQ., CGDRB
    Chelsea L. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com

    The Pandemic of Litigation Sure to Follow the Coronavirus

    March 30, 2020 —
    As the Coronavirus crisis persists, America’s richly diverse private business sector finds itself increasingly subject to unprecedented governmental orders and restrictions that were unheard of only a few weeks ago. While the various “shutdown,” “shelter in place,” and “non-essential business” orders all aim to protect the public health, there is no doubt that the wave of litigation to follow is already swelling. Business interruption, civil authority, and cyber insurance coverages have already been widely discussed as issues certain to be litigated over the coming months and beyond. Additionally, breach of contract litigation is likely to spike as parties attempt to recoup their losses from canceled events, unfulfilled purchase commitments and other unmet obligations. Moreover, regional and national businesses are now in the difficult position of managing their respective affairs to comply with a patchwork of executive orders that are inconsistent from state to state. And, as the pandemic wears on, many are questioning the authority under which some of these executive orders and emergency regulations are being issued in the first place. Indeed, constitutional challenges are almost certain to follow as the business community reframes the characterization of their losses into notions of unconstitutional takings of private property and governmental impairment of private contract rights. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aaron Lovaas, Newmeyer Dillion
    Mr. Lovaas may be contacted at aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com

    Limiting Services Can Lead to Increased Liability

    December 16, 2019 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday Musings, we welcome Nick Pacella. Nick is an architect licensed in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. His practice has spanned several economic swings and he has been able to reposition the eggs in his basket to make the most of each recovery. He is currently focusing on adapting existing commercial buildings to take advantage of materials and processes that promote improved energy efficiency for both the owner and the tenants. For a more colorful rendition of projects you can visit his company’s website. I remember as a kid when the attendant at gas stations would not only clean your windows but also check the oil level of your vehicle as it was filling up with $0.25 per gallon gas. (I did say that I have seen several economic swings) These services have mostly disappeared, and to no great effect to your car since most cars go much longer between oil changes. Other than a slightly dirtier windshield it hasn’t affected your ability to drive and maintain your car. This is not so with professional services. Architects used to include many services that are now sourced to others. Project Management, Owner’s Representatives and Program Managers now populate the landscape. In many cases they came to be because architects either did not provide the service their client’s were looking for or they allowed themselves to be put into an adversarial relationship with their clients. They were likened to foxes watching the chicken coop, especially for project management and owners representative services. Client’s have had others buzzing in their ears “are architects really going to look out for my interests above theirs?’” Of course the clients never ask if the new wave will do any better at rallying behind their interests. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com