BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expert
    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


    Water Bond Would Authorize $7.5 Billion for California Water Supply Infrastructure Projects

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    Homebuilding Down in North Dakota

    Falling Tree Causing Three Injuries/Deaths Is One Occurrence

    Appellate Division Confirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owners in Action Alleging Labor Law Violations

    Preventing Common Electrical Injuries on the Jobsite

    How Philadelphia I-95 Span Destroyed by Fire Reopened in Just 12 Days

    Restoring the USS Alabama: Surety Lessons From an 80-Year-Old Battleship

    California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions

    California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now

    The Secret to Success Is Doing Things a Little Bit Differently

    Contractual Setoff and Application When Performance Bond Buys Out of its Exposure

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    BIM Legal Liabilities: Not That Different

    California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

    Hotel Owner Makes Construction Defect Claim

    “For What It’s Worth”

    Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

    Connecticut District Court to Review Proposed Class Action in Defective Concrete Suit

    Justin Bieber’s Unpaid Construction Bill Stalls House Sale

    Under Colorado House Bill 17-1279, HOA Boards Now Must Get Members’ Informed Consent Before Bringing A Construction Defect Action

    No Duty to Defend Under Pollution Policy

    FHFA’s Watt Says Debt Cuts Possible for Underwater Homeowners

    Takeaways From Schedule-Based Dispute Between General Contractor and Subcontractor

    The DOL Claims Most Independent Contractors Are Employees

    Contractor Changes Contract After Signed, Then Sues Older Woman for Breaking It

    Chinese Lead $92 Billion of U.S. Home Sales to Foreigners

    New York State Legislature Reintroduces Bills to Extend Mortgage Recording Tax to Mezzanine Debt and Preferred Equity

    Only Two Weeks Until BHA’s Texas MCLE Seminar in San Antonio

    Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy

    New York Court Rejects Owner’s Bid for Additional Insured Coverage

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    General Contractor’s Professional Malpractice/Negligence Claim Against Design Professional

    Determining Occurrence for Injury Under Commercial General Liability Policy Without Applying “Trigger Theory”

    Close Enough Only Counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades

    More Reminders that the Specific Contract Terms Matter

    U.S. Tornadoes, Hail Cost Insurers $1 Billion in June

    MSJ Granted Equates to a Huge Victory for BWB&O & City of Murrieta Fire Department!

    The Requirement to Post Collateral Under General Agreement of Indemnity Is Real

    Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

    Keller Group Fires Two Executives in Suspected Australia Profits Reporting Fraud

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    Contractor Haunted by “Demonized” Flooring

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

    SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens

    Suffolk Stands Down After Consecutive Serious Boston Site Injuries

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Apparently, It’s Not Always Who You Know”

    Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

    General Release of Contractor Upheld Despite Knowledge of Construction Defects
    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

    Nebraska Joins the Ranks—No CGL Coverage for Faulty Work

    September 17, 2014 —
    The Nebraska Court of Appeals has ruled that a home builder that fails to adequately compact the soil does not have insurance coverage to repair damages to the home caused by the settling soil. In “insurance speak”, there was no occurrence to trigger coverage. In this case, Cizek Homes, Inc. v Columbia National Insurance Company, a home builder contracted with a buyer to build a house. A lot was selected and the home was built. After the buyer moved in, the house started to settle, causing damage to the house. The buyer told the builder about these problems and the builder agreed to fix the problems. The builder also contacted its insurance company and requested coverage for the buyer’s claim. The insurer rejected the claim, determining that the buyer’s claim was not covered by the builder’s Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance. The insurer then filed suit asking the court to interpret the insurance policy and to determine whether the CGL insurance covered the claim. The court looked to the buyer’s allegations that the builder failed to construct the home in accordance with accepted construction and industry standards and that the builder was negligent in designing and constructing the home. The builder admitted that it was obligated to pay for the costs of repairs, but denied that it was negligent in constructing the home. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA

    May 16, 2022 —
    In March 2022, the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, issued Marpac Constr., LLC v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., No. 82200-4-I, 2022 WL 896850, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2022) holding Marpac Construction, LLC (“Marpac”) liable for three willful Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) violations pertaining to safe crane operation near energized power lines. Marpac was the general contractor on an apartment complex construction project in West Seattle. The worksite had high voltage power lines running throughout the site. Seattle City Light had flagged some with a 10-foot offset, but none of the other power lines were flagged. Marpac’s superintendent assumed that the lines were between 26 kilovolts (kV) and 50 kV based on their connection to the lines flagged by Seattle City Light. The superintendent never called Seattle City Light to check the voltage of the lines and the lines remained above ground. In September 2016, a subcontractor began work on the project’s structural foundation. The subcontractor expressed concerns about working around the power lines, but Marpac promised it was working on mitigation of the power line hazard and directed the subcontractor continue working. At one point, the subcontractor’s employees had to move the crane and concrete forms away from the power lines to allow a cement truck to park in its place. The crane’s line contacted the power lines, causing serious injuries to two of the subcontractor’s employees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Sheldon may be contacted at cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com

    Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

    October 28, 2011 —

    The US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”

    The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”

    D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:

    “(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”

    The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.

    The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.

    Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.

    The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    FIFA Inspecting Brazil’s World Cup Stadiums

    March 26, 2014 —
    Representatives from FIFA have returned to Brazil to conduct inspections of the World Cup stadiums, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Even though Brazil had told FIFA they would have all twelve done by the end of 2013, only nine are finished. Furthermore, “infrastructure work in many of the 12 host cities remains far from completed.” “This is the last occasion for the organizers to take stock of the operational preparations before the respective FIFA World Cup installations begin to be implemented in all 12 host cities,” FIFA said in a statement, as quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractors Battle Bitter Winters at $11.8B Site C Hydro Project in Canada

    October 30, 2023 —
    Half the year spent in bone-aching cold. Soils frozen hard as concrete. Mountains of snow. A seemingly unending flow of machinery, workforce and earthen material to and from the site. A temporary city to house thousands of workers for nearly a decade. Wildfires encroaching dangerously close. Working under the ever-watchful eyes of regulators, stakeholders and environmentalists. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Keller, Engineering News-Record and Scott Blair, Engineering News-Record Mr. Keller may be contacted at kellerj@enr.com Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Lawyer Claims HOA Scam Mastermind Bribed Politicians

    June 28, 2013 —
    The lawyer defending one of the accused in the Las Vegas HOA scam is now claiming that the FBI investigated bribery of public officials. Chris Rasmussen represents Edith Gillespie, the half-sister of Leon Benzer. Benzer has been accused of being one of the masterminds behind the scheme to pack homeowner boards with members who would make construction defect settlements that were beneficial to the scam’s participants. Rasmussen is trying to get his client tried separately from her half-brother. Rasmussen did not name any public officials. The Justice Department did not comment on his claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Looming Housing Crisis and Limited Government Relief—An Examination of the CDC Eviction Moratorium Two Months In

    December 14, 2020 —
    Months after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a nationwide eviction moratorium using its emergency pandemic powers under the Public Health Service Act, the efficacy of this unprecedented measure remains unclear. While the Order ostensibly protects tenants facing homelessness or housing insecurity due to the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic through the end of 2020, legal challenges have been initiated in Ohio and Georgia, with additional lawsuits appearing likely. Further, even barring legal challenges, courts have not handled these cases in a uniform manner. With lawmakers unable to reach any stimulus or COVID-19 relief agreement before the election, the CDC Order appears likely to remain the only federal eviction moratorium through its expiration on December 31, 2020. Since the Order’s enactment, the CDC has since released new guidance, answering some of the open questions not covered by the initial Order. This guidance, while non-binding, is largely more favorable to landlords and property management companies than the initial text of the Order, as it provides that landlords are not required to make tenants aware of the Order’s protections and may challenge the truthfulness of the tenants’ declarations in any state or municipal court. The guidance also clarified the potential criminal penalties for violating the Order and the criminal penalties for perjury for bad faith submissions of the requisite declaration by tenants. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury
    Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com

    Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

    December 10, 2015 —
    Blackstone Group LP agreed to buy 32 multifamily properties for about $2 billion from Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC as the private equity giant expands its push into the U.S. apartment market. The buildings, with a total of 10,399 units, are spread throughout the country in states such as California, Florida, Washington and New York, Greystar said in a statement Tuesday. The Charleston, South Carolina-based company, the largest U.S. apartment manager, will continue to oversee the properties. Peter Rose, a Blackstone spokesman, declined to comment on the transaction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah Mulholland, Bloomberg