BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing 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


    Billionaire Behind Victoria’s Secret Built His Version of the American Heartland

    E-Commerce Logistics Test Limits of Tilt-Up Construction

    Meet the Forum's Neutrals: TOM DUNN

    Include Materials Price Escalation Clauses in Construction Clauses

    Is Construction in Arizona Back to Normal?

    Texas Supreme Court Authorizes Exception to the "Eight-Corners" Rule

    OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

    Denver Airport Terminates P3 Contract For Main Terminal Renovation

    2021 Executive Insights: Leaders in Construction Law

    Judicial Panel Denies Nationwide Consolidation of COVID-19 Business Interruption Cases

    ASHRAE Approves Groundbreaking Standard to Reduce the Risk of Disease Transmission in Indoor Spaces

    Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

    Florida Law: Interplay of SIR and the Made-Whole Doctrine

    DOD Contractors Receive Reprieve on Implementation of Chinese Telecommunications Ban

    Is it time for a summer tune-up?

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

    Chambers USA 2021 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Contractor’s Charge Of Improvements To Real Property Not Required For Laborers To Have Lien Rights

    DoD Testing New Roofing System that Saves Energy and Water

    First Circuit Rejects Insurer’s “Insupportable” Duty-to-Cooperate Defense in Arson Coverage Suit

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    The Future of Construction Defects in Utah Unclear

    Co-Housing Startups Fly in the Face of Old-School NYC Housing Law

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

    After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

    School Board Sues Multiple Firms over Site Excavation Problem

    Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    End of an Era: Los Angeles County Superior Court Closes the Personal Injury Hub

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    Showdown Over Landmark Housing Law Looms at U.S. Supreme Court

    Make Prudent Decisions regarding your Hurricane Irma Property Damage Claims

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Preparing Your Business For Internal Transition

    When Can a General Contractor’s Knowledge be Imputed to a Developer?

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Lawsuits Begin: Iconic Oceana Grill in New Orleans Files Insurance Coverage Lawsuit

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred By Exclusion j (5)

    Ornate Las Vegas Palace Rented by Michael Jackson for Sale

    Gibbs Giden is Pleased to Announce Four New Partners and Two New Associates

    New Jersey’s Governor Puts Construction Firms on Formal Notice of His Focus on Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    Insurer's Withheld Discovery Must be Produced in Bad Faith Case

    Five Actions Construction and Energy Risk Managers Can Take to Avoid the Catastrophic Consequences of a Cyber Attack

    Maria Latest Threat to Puerto Rico After $1 Billion Irma Hit

    Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied

    Prior Occurrence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defects

    ACEC Research Institute Releases New Engineering Industry Forecast

    Not Our Territory: 11th Circuit Dismisses Hurricane Damage Appraisal Order for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Ten Years After Colorado’s Adverse Possession Amendment: a brief look backwards and forwards

    Bert Hummel Appointed Vice Chair of State Bar of Georgia Bench & Bar Committee
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    The Death of Retail and Legal Issues

    June 15, 2017 —
    The National Review recently published an article about the wide ranging economic and social impacts of the death of traditional mid-market shopping malls. The article is not overtly political and at time waxes nostalgic about the prototypical 1980’s shopping mall. However, the article highlights real problems facing the owners of these malls and other traditional shopping centers. As expected, the economic issues have spurred legal and litigation issues for landlords. One of the issues I have been dealing with is what are a big box tenant’s obligations after a lease expires. Many of the big box tenants that are now vacating malls and shopping centers have been long term tenants. Sometimes, their leases go back decades. In the meantime, the mall may have changed hands. The original lease signed with a second or third removed owner and no doubt amended several times might be long forgotten. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

    October 30, 2023 —
    It’s the classic tale of two cities. One city is occupied by architects and engineers. The other, by contractors. And while the cities typically co-exist relatively peacefully together, at times, they do not, such as when a defect arises that can either be a design or construction defect. Sometimes, project owners are pulled into these fights as well. There is a common law rule that when contracting with a contractor the owner impliedly warrants to the contractor that the plans and specifications are sufficiently accurate and correct. And, if you work on local public works projects, you may be familiar with Public Contract Code section 1104 which provides that, with the exception of design-build projects, local public entities cannot require a bidder to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of architectural or engineering plans and specifications. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    New Standard Addresses Wind Turbine Construction Safety Requirements and Identifies Hazards

    October 09, 2018 —
    American Society of Safety Professionals’ industry consensus standard, ANSI/ASSP A10.21 – 2018 Safety Requirements for Safe Construction and Demolition of Wind Generation/Turbine Facilities, is the first standard to identify and address hazards specific to wind turbine construction. It includes nearly a dozen appendices that provide additional consideration and guidance for hazards that vary between projects, turbines and geographical areas. The new A10.21 standard starts by requiring a site hazard identification prior to construction commencing. It establishes the general contractor as the responsible party for site hazard identification assessment. This is because the general contractor is usually one of the first entities on site able to assess the various challenges/concerns such as: geography, utilities, environmental, etc. This assessment is usually done by driving the project site and identifying GPS coordinates of specific challenges. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Daniels, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Daniels may be contacted at chris.daniels@mortenson.com

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    November 06, 2018 —
    Taking into consideration a "Revised Occurrence Endorsement," the federal district court determined the insurer had a duty to defend. Gemini Ins Co. v. Constrx Ltd., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163453 (D. Haw. Sept. 24, 2018). Constrx Ltd. (CRX) contracted with the AOAO to perform remedial construction repairs to condominium buildings and apartment units. CRX asserted that it completed all work, including charge orders and punch list items and it left the site. CRX was paid less that the contract amount and demanded arbitration against the AOAO. In the arbitration the AOAO relied upon a report by Posard Brock & Associates (PBA) Report which set forth the AOAO's claims against CRX, including corrective work, remaining punch list work, construction delay costs, cost overruns, and other items justifying its payment than less that the contract amount. 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

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

    November 30, 2016 —
    In Tidwell Enterprises v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co. (No. C078665, filed 11/29/16), a California appeals court held that that even though a house fire occurred after the policy period, there was nonetheless a possibility of coverage because the fire might have been the result of ongoing damage to the wood in the chimney chase during the policy period, due to the exposure of that wood to excessive heat from the chimney every time a fire was burned in the fireplace. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Local Government’s Claims on Developer Bonds Dismissed for Failure to Pursue Administrative Remedies

    March 22, 2017 —
    The Georgia Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a county’s claim on developer bonds based on its failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Douglas County v. Hamilton State Bank, — Ga. App. –, A16A1708 (Mar. 16, 2017). Specifically, because the bank was under FDIC receivership, the County was required to pursue administrative remedies under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (the “Act”). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    July 30, 2014 —
    In National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Turner Construction Co., 986 N.Y.S.2d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014), Turner was the general contractor for a high rise office building constructed in New Jersey for owner GSJC. Turner subcontracted with Permasteelisa for the building’s exterior curtain wall which consisted of granite and glass with an attached network of decorative pipe rails. A segment of the pipe rails fell from the building onto the street. GSJC determined that a significant percentage of the pipe rail connections to the curtain wall did not conform to specifications or were defective. GSJC sued Turner and Permasteelisa in New Jersey state court for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence, seeking damages for the damage to the curtain wall and the danger of additional pipe rail falling in the future. National Union, which had issued an OCIP policy for the project, defended Turner and Permasteelisa under a reservation of rights and then filed a declaratory judgment action in New York state court. The New York trial court entered judgment for National Union. On appeal, the intermediate court of appeals affirmed. As to choice of law, the court stated that “it is undisputed that the law of New Jersey governs this action, which turns on insurance policy interpretation, and that New Jersey and New York law are consistent as to the issues in dispute here.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

    California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

    October 02, 2018 —
    In its recent decision in Essex Walnut Owner L.P. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138276 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California had occasion to consider the issue of a pollution liability insurer’s obligation to pay for the redesign of a structural support system necessitated by the alleged presence of soil contamination. Aspen’s insured, Essex, owned a parcel of property it was in the process of redeveloping for commercial and residential purposes. The project required excavation activities in order to construct an underground parking lot, and as part of this process, Essex designed a temporary shoring system comprising tied-in retaining walls in order to stabilize the area outside of the excavation. During the excavation work, construction debris was encountered requiring removal. Aspen agreed to pay for a portion of the costs to remove and dispose the debris under the pollution liability policy it issued to Essex. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
    Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com