BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design 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


    Hollywood Legend Betty Grable’s Former Home for Sale

    Prevailing HOAs Not Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in Enforcement Actions Brought Under Davis-Stirling

    Let’s Talk About a Statutory First-Party Bad Faith Claim Against an Insurer

    In All Fairness: Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Arbitration Clause in a Residential Construction Contract Was Unconscionable and Unenforceable

    Court Finds Matching of Damaged Materials is Required by Policy

    Buy America/Buy American, a Primer For Contractors

    Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell Recognized in 2024 Best Law Firm® Rankings

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    Bad Faith Jury Verdict Upheld After Insurer's Failure to Settle Within Policy Limits

    When to use Arbitration to Resolve Construction Disputes

    Settlement Agreement? It Ain’t Over ‘Til it’s . . . Final, in Writing, Fully Executed, and Admissible

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers!

    Granting of Lodestar Multiplier in Coverage Case Affirmed

    Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    Safety, Technology Combine to Change the Construction Conversation

    New California Construction Laws for 2020

    Virginia General Assembly Tweaks Pay-if-Paid Ban

    Firm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in Germany

    Reasonableness of Liquidated Damages Determined at Time of Contract (or, You Can’t Look Back Again)

    Corrective Action Protest Grounds for GSA Schedule Federal Construction Contractors

    Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Melissa Pang Elected Vice President of APABA-PA Board of Directors

    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    Tallest U.S. Skyscraper Dream Kept Alive by Irish Builder

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Falls to Lowest Since Early 1995

    Difficulty in Defending Rental Supplier’s Claim Under Credit Application

    Breach Of Duty of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Packaged With Contract Disputes Act Claim

    Framework, Tallest Mass Timber Project in the U.S., Is On Hold

    Hydrogen Powers Its Way from Proof of Concept to Reality in Real Estate

    Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy: Colorado Court of Appeals Expressly Affirms the Continuing Viability of the Common-Law After-Acquired Title Doctrine and Expressly Recognizes Utility Easements by Necessity

    Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

    Spearin Doctrine 100 Years Old and Still Thriving in the Design-Build Delivery World

    PFAS: From Happy Mistake to Ubiquity to Toxic Liability (But is there coverage?)

    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    Apartment Projects Fuel 13% Jump in U.S. Housing Starts

    Revolutionizing Buildings with Hybrid Energy Systems and Demand Response

    Repeated Use of Defective Fireplace Triggers Duty to Defend Even if Active Fire Does Not Break Out Until After End of Policy Period

    Know and Meet Your Notice Requirements or Lose Your Payment Bond Claims

    Insurer's Daubert Challenge to Insured's Expert Partially Successful

    Pennsylvania “occurrence”

    Truck Hits Warning Beam That Falls, Kills Motorist at Las Vegas Bridge Project

    Motion to Dismiss Insureds' Counterclaim on the Basis of Prior Knowledge Denied

    Federal Lawsuit Accuses MOX Contractors of Fraud

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Search in Florida Collapse to Take Weeks; Deaths Reach 90

    Caltrans to Speak before California Senate regarding Bay Bridge Expansion

    Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insureds Can Use Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Duty to Defend

    California Contractors – You Should Know That Section 7141.5 May Be Your Golden Ticket

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

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

    November 13, 2023 —
    It’s not every day that a construction company gets to renovate an 80-year-old battleship. Yet that’s exactly where Youngblood-Barrett Construction & Engineering workers found themselves when they began restoring the main deck of the USS Alabama, a storied World War II battleship. The USS Alabama has a remarkable past. One of four South Dakota–class battleships, the “Mighty A” was commissioned in 1942. It deployed first to the Atlantic and then to the Pacific, where it earned nine battle stars for meritorious service. At 680 feet long and 108 feet wide, the “Heroine of the Pacific” had a wartime crew of 2,500 men. By 1962, though, the Navy was ready to scrap it. That’s when the state of Alabama decided to acquire the ship and preserve it as a museum. The USS Alabama was moved to Mobile and opened to the public in January 1965. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Sghiatti, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Don’t Fall in Trap of Buying the Cheapest Insurance Policy as it May be Bad for Your Business Risks and Needs

    March 25, 2024 —
    Don’t fall in the trap of buying the cheapest insurance policy. It will come and bite you in the butt big time! Consult with an insurance broker that understands construction and, importantly, your specific industry, to provide you coverage within your industry. Otherwise, you’ll be paying for a policy that may (i) not be a good policy, and (ii) may provide you minimal to no value for your industry’s RISKS and NEEDS when factoring in exclusions. When procuring insurance, think of the old adage “penny wise and pound foolish,” and don’t make decisions that fit within this adage! The recent decision in Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Pinnacle Engineering & Development, Inc., 2024 WL 940527 (S.D. Fla. 2024) serves as an example. Here, a subcontractor was hired by a general contractor to perform underground utility work for a townhome development which consisted of 57 townhome units included in 18 detached structures. The subcontractor’s underground work was defective which caused damage to the property’s water line, sewer system, plumbing lines, pavers, etc. The general contractor was liable to the owner for this defective work. Although the general contractor was an additional insured under the subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy, the subcontractor’s CGL carrier denied the duty to defend and initiated an insurance coverage lawsuit. Motions for summary judgment were filed. 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

    No Interlocutory Appeals of "Garden-Variety" Contract Disputes

    March 12, 2015 —
    Colorado’s new procedure for interlocutory appeals has its limits. In the recent decision of Rich v. Ball Ranch Partnership, ___ P.3d ___, 2014 COA 6 (2015), the Colorado Court of Appeals held that Appellate Rule 4.2 does not permit interlocutory review of questions of law in “garden-variety” or “run-of-the-mill” contract disputes. This resolves a subtle question that has been lingering since Colorado first created the interlocutory appeal process four years ago. Prior to 2011, Colorado did not permit civil litigants to seek appellate review prior to final judgment, except in a small handful of situations. As I discussed in an article at the time, this changed with the passage of C.R.S. § 13-4-102.1 and the adoption of Rule 4.2, which granted the court of appeals discretion to permit the immediate appeal of certain district court orders. These provisions allowed parties to seek interlocutory review of orders before the conclusion of a case if a district court could certify that (1) immediate review might promote a more orderly disposition or establish a final disposition of the litigation, and (2) the order involved a controlling and unresolved question of law. The rule was patterned after 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which provides similar relief in the federal courts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
    Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.acerbicwitt.com

    New Orleans Drainage System Recognized as Historic Civil Engineering Landmark

    May 29, 2023 —
    NEW ORLEANS, La. – The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) today recognized the New Orleans Drainage System in New Orleans, Louisiana as a Historic Civil Engineering Landmark. The project was innovative and largely unprecedented for its time, and the first portions came online in the year 1900. The system now consists of 22 drainage pumping stations and 1,200 miles of network drains, as well as green infrastructure elements to manage stormwater runoff. The infrastructure is largely credited for making the existence of New Orleans possible, and the improved drainage and reduction in standing water contributed to better public health and reduced the number of malaria and typhoid deaths in the early 20th century. New Orleans' position near the mouth of the Mississippi River made it a vital city for trade and commerce in the U.S. economy since the early 1800s, despite its problematic natural environment. The city was perched along the banks of the Mississippi River and next to Lake Pontchartrain, surrounded by swamps. Improvements to levee systems prevented the city from being inundated with flooding from the river, but rainfall became a pervasive issue as the city's population grew in the 1870s. The drainage system was first proposed in 1876 to replace primitive "drainage machines," steam-powered paddle wheels that moved water runoff into canals that led to Lake Pontchartrain. The existing system was inefficient and could not handle the frequent, heavy tropical rain New Orleans experiences and could not lift water sufficiently to drain the city. After several proposals, construction on the current drainage system started in 1897, and the first portions of the system came online in 1900. The system drains stormwater through pipes and canals to reach drainage pump stations which expel the water into several bodies of water surrounding the city. Engineers have repeatedly expanded and enlarged the drainage system, including a massive investment in the drainage system authorized by the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project and approved by Congress in 1996. The Sewerage and Water Board's green infrastructure plan is a critical partner and complement to the drainage system today. The New Orleans Drainage System's design has inspired water management system design in communities around America and worldwide. In Southeastern Florida, water management systems using pumps and canals divert excess water away from heavily populated areas during heavy rain, including tropical storms and hurricanes. Engineers in Kolkata, India and Shanghai, China have also used drainage and pumping systems like the ones in New Orleans to assist with water management. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . .

    January 05, 2017 —
    We’ve talked about the Privette doctrine before (see here, here, and here). The Privette doctrine, named after the court case Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, provides in general that project owners and contractors are not responsible for worksite injuries suffered by employees of lower-tiered contractors they have hired, the rationale being that such workers should already be covered under their employers’ workers’ compensation insurance policies. In the twenty years since Privette was decided, however, several exceptions have evolved that have narrowed the doctrine. One exception, known as the retained control exception, allows a contractor’s employees to sue the “hirer” of the contractor (that is, the higher-tiered party who “hired” the lower-tiered party whose employee is injured) when the hirer retains control over any part of the work and negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the employee’s injury. Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198. Another exception, known as the nondelegable duty exception, permits an injured worker to recover against a hirer when the hirer has assumed a nondelegable duty, including statutory and regulatory duties, that it breaches in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury. Padilla v. Pomona College (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 661. In a recently decided case, Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc., Case No. B268937 (November 17, 2016), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District examined the application of the Hooker and Padilla exceptions where a general contractor was contractually responsible for overall site safety. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Reject Collapse Coverage Denied

    November 24, 2019 —
    The insurer unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment seeking to reject the insured's collapse claim. Gnannn v. United Servs. Auto, Ass'n, 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1955 (Conn. Super Ct. July 11, 2019). The insureds' home was built in 1985 and they purchased their home in 1993. A home inspection reported that some settlement and curing related cracks existed in the slab floor, but no signs of abnormal settlement were noticed. The concrete walls were in overall good condition. In 2015, the insureds became aware of abnormal cracking in the basement. USAA was informed of the claim but denied coverage in October 2015. The insureds sued USAA. After suit was filed, the insureds hired an engineer, David Grandpre, to inspect their home. He observed severe cracking in the basement walls caused by an expansive chemical reaction within the concrete. The structure was not in imminent peril of falling down, and it continued as insureds' residence. But Mr. Grandpre noticed bulging and bowing, evidence that the concrete basement walls had failed and had begun to move inward due to the lateral pressure of the soil outside the home. 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

    2018 California Construction Law Update

    January 10, 2018 —
    The California State Legislature introduced 2,495 bills during the first year of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session. Of these, 859 were signed into law. While much political attention was focused on several California laws that could be viewed as California’s rebuke of Washington, including California’s legalization of marijuana, enactment of “sanctuary state” legislation, and bills focused on climate change, 2017 also saw the enactment of a package of bills intended to address the state’s housing affordability crises (for a great summary of these bills see Wendel Rosen’s Landuse Group’s recent article Slate of New Housing Bills Takes Effect January 1, 2018 ), as well as a range of other bills of interest to the construction industry including bills related construction financing, alternative project delivery methods, and solar construction. Each of the bills discussed below took effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise stated. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black, Dean, LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Government Claims Act Does Not Apply to Actions Solely Seeking Declaratory Relief and Not Monetary Relief

    March 25, 2024 —
    Perhaps it should come as no surprise, but public entities get special treatment under the law, and when filing a claim against a public entity, in most cases, a claimant is required to file a claim with the public entity before filing suit under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code §810 et seq.). But, as the next case demonstrates, that’s not always the case. In Stronghold Engineering Incorporated v. City of Monterey, 96 Cal.App.5th 1203 (2023), the 6th District Court of Appeals examined whether a public works contractor that alleged an extended overhead claim was required to file a Government Claims Act claim before filing suit when its initial complaint was limited to a claim for declaratory relief. The Stronghold Case In December 2015, general contractor Stronghold Engineering Incorporated entered into a construction contract with the City of Monterey for the renovation of the City’s conference center and an adjacent city-owned plaza. The construction contract provided that any modification to the construction contract had to be approved by the City through a written change order. No surprise there. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com