BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering 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


    Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

    Harrisburg Sought Support Before Ruinous Incinerator Retrofit

    Learning from Production Homes of the Past

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Nationally Ranked as a 2020 “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News – Best Lawyers®

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

    Study Finds Mansion Tax Reduced Sales in New York and New Jersey

    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Honors Construction Attorney

    Four Key Steps for a Successful Construction Audit Process

    Employee Exclusion Bars Coverage for Wrongful Death of Subcontractor's Employee

    After Restoring Power in North Carolina, Contractor Faces Many Claims

    Design-Build Contracting for County Road Projects

    Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims

    Message from the Chair: Kelsey Funes (Volume I)

    Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

    2020s Most Read Construction Law Articles

    Mendocino Hospital Nearing Completion

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    L.A.’s Modest Solution to the ‘Missing Middle’ Housing Problem

    Construction Defects Up Price and Raise Conflict over Water Treatment Expansion

    The Best Laid Plans: Contingency in a Construction Contract

    Former Sponsor of the Lenox Facing Suit in Supreme Court

    Can an App Renovate a Neighborhood?

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Governor Signs Permit Extension Bill Extending Permit Deadlines to One Year

    Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected

    Insurer Defends Denial in Property Coverage Dispute Involving Marijuana Growing Operations

    Alabama Court Upholds Late Notice Disclaimer

    Acord Certificates of Liability Insurance: What They Don’t Tell You Can Hurt You

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Wisconsin Court Applies the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Negligence Claims for Purely Economic Losses

    The Construction Lawyer as Problem Solver

    Why Do Construction Companies Fail?

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/30/22) – Proptech Trends, Green Construction, and Sustainable Buildings

    Nevada OSHA Provides Additional Requirements for Construction Employers to Address Feasibility of Social Distancing at Construction Sites

    Drones Give Inspectors a Closer Look at Bridges

    Subcontractors Have a Duty to Clarify Ambiguities in Bid Documents

    Whose Employee is it Anyway?: Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Injured Subcontractor's Claim Based on Modified Employer's Liability Exclusion

    Lithium for Batteries from Geothermal Brine

    Contractors and Force Majeure: Contractual Protection from Hurricanes and Severe Weather

    Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

    AI in Construction: What Does It Mean for Our Contractors?

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

    Road to Record $199 Million Award Began With Hunch on Guardrails

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (09/21/22) – 3D Printing, Sustainable Design, and the Housing Market Correction

    Lewis Brisbois Ranks Among Top 25 Firms on NLJ’s 2021 Women in Law Scorecard

    FEMA, Congress Eye Pre-Disaster Funding, Projects

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

    Construction Leads World Trade Center Area Vulnerable to Flooding

    Absence of Property Damage During Policy Period Equates to No Coverage

    Hurricane Damage Not Covered for Home Owner Not Named in Policy
    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

    Enerpac Plays Critical Role in Industry-changing Discovery for Long Span Bridges at The University of Nebraska-Lincoln

    April 19, 2022 —
    MENOMONEE FALLS, Wis. (April 18, 2022) – Three years ago when Marc Maguire, assistant professor of construction programs at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, started investigating a new stranded wire product for bridge girder reinforcing he thought the best strands for bridge construction were the industry standard 7-wire strands. After running a multitude of analyses, Maguire and student researchers found that 19-wire 1-1/8 in. diameter strands outperform the typical 7-wire 1-1/6 in. diameter strands and allow bridges to reach unprecedented lengths. Further tests conducted by the Durham School of Architectural Engineering and Construction with the help of Enerpac hydraulic tools examined the bond strength, force transfer, and development length of the 19-wire strands. "Traditionally, 19-wire strands are not often used in the U.S. because they are not widely available and they are much larger than standard strands," said Maguire. "We wanted to show that there was an alternative option to the common 7-wire strand--one that can perform at the same level, if not better." About Enerpac Enerpac is a global market leader in high pressure hydraulic tools, controlled force products, portable machining, on-site services and solutions for precise positioning of heavy loads. As a leading innovator with a 110-year legacy, Enerpac has helped move and maintain some of the largest structures on earth. When safety and precision matters, elite professionals in industries such as aerospace, infrastructure, manufacturing, mining, oil & gas and power generation rely on Enerpac for quality tools, services and solutions. For more information, visit www.enerpac.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Telematics and Usage Based Insurance Products

    October 29, 2014 —
    The New York State Department of Financial Services (the "DFS") issued Insurance Circular Letter No. 4 on May 27, 2014 (the “Circular Letter”). The purpose of the Circular Letter was to alert stakeholders of the DFS’ interest in obtaining information about products that use embedded telematic devices, including usage-based insurance products (“UBI”) that provide benefits to insurers and policyholders. As data capture and transmission technology become more advanced, and as user interfaces become increasingly sophisticated, many insurers are considering UBI and other programs that rely upon telematic devices to monitor the behavioral patterns, tendencies and habits of insureds. For example, when these devices are installed in an insured's vehicle, a telematic device can gather driving data, including miles driven, the time of day the driver used the vehicle, and his/her speed, acceleration and braking patterns. This data can be captured and transmitted on a real-time basis that allows insurers to make more effective underwriting determinations and to better align pricing with an insured’s driving tendencies and the resulting attendant risks. Other insurers have applied UBI to homeowner’s insurance where, for example, smoke and other alarms and monitoring devices can monitor and transmit details regarding the resident's risk-based activities (for example, whether and how often and how long the insured uses ovens and stoves on an attended and unattended basis). This data can be used to facilitate an insurer’s ability to correlate insurance coverage decisions with the insured’s actual behavior (as opposed to self-reported behavior) as measured by sophisticated home-based telematic devices. In addition, UBI and other programs provide the data on a real-time basis, as opposed to collecting information via traditional means, principally based upon post-claim reporting. Tempering increased UBI usage are countervailing privacy and data protection concerns and risks. Regulators, insurers and consumers have significant stakes in the availability, access and applications of this information. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Ansehl, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ansehl may be contacted at ansehlr@whiteandwilliams.com

    Insurer Rejecting Construction Defect Claim Must Share in Defense Costs

    March 02, 2020 —
    One insurer, who accepted the tender of defense in a construction defect case, successfully moved for summary judgment against the second insurer, who denied the insured's tender. Interstate Fire & Cas. v. Aspen Ins. UK Ltd., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5800 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 25,2019). Standard Waterproofing Corporation was hired by the construction manager, G Builders, to perform waterproofing work as part of condominium conversion project. After the project was completed,the condominium occupants experienced water damage in their units. The Condominium Board retained an engineer who reported numerous issues of water infiltration relating to Standard's work. The Condominium Board filed suit against the construction manager, who filed a third party complaint against Standard. Standard tendered to four different insurers, including plaintiff Interstate and defendant Aspen. Interstate agreed to defend, while Aspen and the other two insurers declined. Aspen argued there were no allegations of an occurrence resulting in property damage during its policy periods. Interstate filed for declaratory relief against Aspen and Standard. 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 York Court Holds Insurer Can Recover Before Insured Is Made Whole

    October 24, 2023 —
    In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tamagawa, Index No. 510977/2021, 2023 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 5434, the Supreme Court of New York considered whether an insurance carrier can settle its property subrogation lawsuit with the defendant, and discontinue the lawsuit, while the carrier’s insured still had pending claims with the carrier and claims for uninsured losses against the defendant. The court held that the carrier’s claims for the amount paid are divisible and independent of the insured’s claims and that the carrier’s settlement did not affect the insured’s right to sue for any unreimbursed losses. The court’s decision reminds us that, in New York, a carrier can resolve its subrogation claim before the insured is made whole. In June 2018, a water loss occurred in an apartment owned by Malik Graves-Pryor (Graves-Pryor). Graves-Pryor reported a claim to his property insurance carrier, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (Carrier). Investigation into the water loss revealed that the water originated from failed plumbing pipes in another apartment unit owned by Taku Tamagawa (Tamagawa). Carrier paid its insured over $600,000 for repairs. In May 2021, Carrier filed a subrogation lawsuit against Tamagawa, alleging improper maintenance of the plumbing pipes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    A Bill for an Act Concerning Workers’ Compensation – 2014 Edition

    January 13, 2014 —
    Workers’ compensation (“WC”) costs are a significant portion of the labor costs experienced by construction companies. These costs have typically risen over time due to the “experience modification factor.” This term means the amortized cost of past claims recovered through future premiums charged by an insurer to an employer. As a company’s claims go up in both number of claims and total expense of claims over time, the experience modifier increases as a multiplier of the base WC premium. As with other general medical costs, the question is not whether the cost of claims with a medical component will go up, but rather the rate at which they will increase from year to year. It is with these facts of life in mind that it is reported that the Colorado legislature will take up a bill concerning WC benefits in the 2014 session. This bill, if passed, will have the likely effect of dramatically increasing the cost of WC claims to the construction industry - along with all other Colorado employers. The draft bill has three distinct changes for the current law, each of which serves to change the delicate balance of rights and obligations of employers and employees under existing law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Esq.
    W. Berkeley Mann, Esq. can be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Minnesota Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in a construction defect case, Lee v. Gorham. Minnesota law requires that contractors warranty that the home will be free of major construction defects during the first ten years, but claims must “be brought within two years of the discovery of the breach.” The Lees received a home inspection report in 2009 that identified a variety of defects, including “several possible structural defects.” The court noted that the report stated, “Contact your builder in writing of the findings, and discuss your options with an attorney.” The Lees contacted the contractor, Gorham Builders. After initial silence, Gorham told the Lees that problems would “have to be ‘turned over to [the] insurance company.’” Rodney noted in his testimony that he had two choices, to either sue Gorham or hire an outside contractor. Mr. Lee had concluded that the legal costs were likely to be equal to the cost of the contractor. In June, 2011, the Lees changed their mind about bringing a suit. Gorham sought and received a summary judgment dismissing the case on the grounds that too much time had passed since the Lees learned of the construction defect. The Lees appealed. The appeals court upheld the summary judgment. The Lees claimed that the 2009 home inspection did not alert them of a “major construction defect,” but the court concluded that the language of the report fit within the Minnesota statutory definition of a “major construction defect.” Nor was the appeals court convinced that at any time did Gorham provide “assurances that it would cure the defects to the home.” Within the same month as the May 2009 inspection, Gorham had made it clear that any problems were an issue for the insurance company. Thus, the appeals court concluded that the Lee’s equitable-estoppel argument was without merit. The Lees also brought to appeal the new argument that they did not realize they were dealing with “major construction defects” until they received a subsequent home inspection in 2011. The court noted that the second report does not detail “new defects or structural issues not identified in the 2009 inspection report.” In addition to being “without merit,” the court noted that this claim was not made in the district court and so the appeals court “need not consider this issue on appeal.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    4 Ways to Mitigate Construction Disputes

    March 20, 2023 —
    Resolving construction disputes in litigation (court or arbitration) can be expensive and may drag on for years. Most disputes could have been avoided, or at least mitigated, had the parties (both owners and contractors) identified contract risks during negotiations and been more proactive in communicating the risks during execution of the work. This article highlights four practical risk management approaches that help all parties focus on their mutual interest in close coordination and clear communication at the beginning of the project as well as throughout performance:
    • Identifying and allocating risks;
    • Accurate scheduling;
    • Clear project documentation and communication; and
    • Real-time dispute resolution.
    The intent of these techniques is not to shift legal obligations or risks. Rather, the intent is to keep project personnel and project management for all the participants focused on communicating and working together, including responsibly confronting real problems to avoid or mitigate their impact. Allocating risks, scheduling, project documentation and communication, and real-time dispute resolution are independently relevant on a bilateral basis between the owner, designer, and the various contractors. These approaches and their diligent execution by the parties during construction contribute far more to a successful project than anything lawyers and claims consultants can contribute in after-the-fact legal proceedings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Mr. Shaughnessy may be contacted at bshaughnessy@joneswalker.com

    How the Cumulative Impact Theory has been Defined

    November 30, 2020 —
    Largely in the federal contract arena, there is a theory referred to as “cumulative impacts” used by a contractor to recover unforeseeable costs associated with a multitude of changes that have an overwhelming ripple effect on its efficiency, particularly efficiency dealing with its original, base contract work. In other words, by dealing with extensive changes, there is an unforeseeable impact imposed on the contractor relative to its unchanged or base contract work. Under this theory, the contractor oftentimes prices its cumulative impact under a total cost approach with an examination on its cost overrun. However, this is not an easy theory to prevail on because there needs to be a focus on the sheer number of changes, causation supporting the impact, and whether there were concurrent impacts or delays that played a role in the ripple effect. See, e.g., Appeals of J.A. Jones Const. Co., ENGBCA No. 6348, 00-2 BCA P 31000 (July 7, 2000) (“However, in the vast majority of cases such claims are routinely denied because there were an insufficient number of changes, contractor-caused concurrent delays, disruptions and inefficiencies and/or a general absence of evidence of causation and impact.”). To best articulate how the cumulative impact theory has been defined, I want to include language directly from courts and board of contract appeals that have dealt with this theory. This way the contractor knows how to best work with their experts with this definition in mind–and, yes, experts will be needed–to persuasively package and establish causation and damages stemming from the multitude of changes. While many of these definitions are worded differently, you will see they have the same focus dealing with the unforeseeable ripple effect of the extensive changes. 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