BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco 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


    The Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects Continues

    Indemnification Against Release/“Disposal” of Hazardous Materials

    Feds Move To Indict NY Contractor Execs, Developer, Ex-Cuomo Aide

    Remote Trials Can Control Prejudgment Risk

    Alabama Federal Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Construction Defect Declaratory Judgment Action Due to Expanded Duty to Defend Standard

    Federal Court Again Confirms No Coverage For Construction Defects in Hawaii

    Alabama Limits Duty to Defend for Construction Defects

    Taking Care of Infrastructure – Interview with Marilyn Grabowski

    Construction Defect Risks Shifted to Insurers in 2013

    Los Angeles Could Be Devastated by the Next Big Earthquake

    New World to Demolish Luxury Hong Kong Towers in Major Setback

    Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)

    Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    Tenth Circuit Finds Appraisal Can Decide Causation of Loss Under Colorado Law

    Specified Or Designated Operations Endorsement – Limitation of Insurance Coverage

    U.S. Department of Defense Institutes New Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification

    Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery

    Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Strikes a Deathblow to Substantial Factor Causation in Most Cases; Is Asbestos Litigation Next?

    Zoning Hearing Notice Addressed by Georgia Appeals Court

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

    NYC’s Developers Plow Ahead With Ambitious Plans to Reshape City

    2023 Construction Outlook: Construction Starts Expected to Flatten

    Heavy Rains Cause Flooding, Mudslides in Japan

    Musings: Moving or Going into a New Service Area, There is More to It Than Just…

    Rejection’s a Bear- Particularly in Construction

    Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Redeux)

    Broken Buildings: Legal Rights and Remedies in the Wake of a Collapse

    Gilbane Project Exec Completes His Mission Against the Odds

    The Importance of Engaging Design Professional Experts Early, with a Focus on Massachusetts Law

    The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

    Idaho Federal Court Rules Against Sacketts After SCOTUS Decided Judicial Review of an EPA Compliance Order was Permissible

    Apartment Investors Turn to Suburbs After Crowding Cities

    Water Backup Payment Satisfies Insurer's Obligation to Cover for Rain Damage

    AI – A Designer’s Assistant or a Replacement?

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 5% in Year to June

    Eleventh Circuit Set to Hear Challenge to Florida Law Barring Foreign Citizens From Buying Real Property

    Include Materials Price Escalation Clauses in Construction Clauses

    Home Buyers will Pay More for Solar

    What the FIU Bridge Collapse Says About Peer Review

    Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Triggered by Complaint's Allegations

    Can an Owner Preemptively Avoid a Mechanics Lien?

    Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging

    California’s Right To Repair Act Is The Sole Remedy For Damages For Construction Defects In New Residential Construction

    Contract Change #1- Insurance in the A201 (law note)

    BE PROACTIVE: Steps to Preserve and Enhance Your Insurance Rights In Light of the Recent Natural Disasters

    Purely “Compensatory” Debts Owed by Attorneys to Clients (Which Are Not Disciplinary or Punitive Fees Imposed by the State Bar) Are Dischargeable In Bankruptcy

    Court Extends Insurer Rights to Equitable Contribution

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts
    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. Drawing 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

    Designers Face Fatal Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Fallout

    December 08, 2016 —
    The use of “severely notched” end connections in the design of timber bridge girders that failed, sending a pair of partly completed pedestrian bridges crashing to the ground—and killing one worker—has come back to haunt the bridge engineer, architect of record and material supplier. The design detail had provoked concerns that were not fully addressed before the November 2014 accident at Wake Technical Community College in Raleigh, N.C., during an expansion project that involved several buildings and the bridges. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com

    Contractor Sentenced to Seven Years for Embezzling $3 Million

    July 20, 2020 —
    Michael Medeiros was not a good guy. Ok, on a scale of 1 to 10, maybe not a 9 or 10 (when you’re including guys like Charles Manson), but a solid 6 or 7 at least. The next case, People v. Medeiros, Case No. A155648, 1st District Court of Appeals (March 26, 2020), is less important for its legal holding than as a reminder that while most legal disputes on construction projects end up with one party owing the other party money, sometimes, when a party’s conduct has been really bad, it can end in a loss of liberty (i.e., jail time) as well. People v. Medeiros Medeiros was a painting contractor operating under the name Professional Painting Company, Inc. In the early 1990s, Medeiros met Susan Lambert, who served as the property manager for a homeowners’ association, Woodlake Association, in Hayward, California. Lambert was an alcoholic. Following a series of surgeries in 2005 and 2007 she became addicted to opiates as well. She also had a gambling problem. As a result, Lambert regularly found herself in financial difficulty. And this is where Lambert and Medeiros found that they shared common ground. At some point, Medeiros confided to Lambert that he was having cash flow and tax problems. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Colorado Legislature Kills SB 20-138 – A Bill to Extend Colorado’s Statute of Repose

    June 22, 2020 —
    As previously reported, SB 20-138, “Concerning Increased Consumer Protection for Homeowners Seeking Relief for Construction Defects,” would have extended the Colorado statute of repose applicable to construction defect claims. Senate Bill 20-138, if enacted, would have:
    1. Extended Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defects from 6+2 years to 10+2 years;
    2. Required tolling of the statute of repose until the claimant discovers not only the physical manifestation of a construction defect, but also its cause; and
    3. Permitted statutory and equitable tolling of the statute of repose.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"

    July 31, 2013 —
    The U.S. District Court in Alabama certified a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: Is damage to a project caused by faulty workmanship "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence"? With some qualification, the Connecticut Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. Capstone Building Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., SC 18886 (Conn. June 11, 2013). Captsone Development agreed to coordinate and supervise construction on a building at the University of Conneticut. Capstone Building was the general contractor. UConn secured an OCIP policy from American Motorist Insurance Company ("AMICO"). More than three years after completion, UConn notified the insureds of alleged defects in the project, including elevated levels of carbon monoxide. The source of the leak was the individual hot water heaters in residential units and insufficient draft of exhaust from the heater.Other defects were found during an investigation. The insureds tendered to AMICO. Coverage was denied because the liability arose out of the insureds' own work.The insureds settled with UConn, paying $1 million each. The insureds then sued AMICO in Alabama and the question was certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    How VR and AR Will Help in Remote Expert Assistance

    June 10, 2019 —
    The speed and quality of maintenance and repair are critical in the modern, technology-packed built environment. Consequently, these were considered in an experimental project that tested how remote expert assistance using VR and AR technologies could help improve the productivity of field service. I’m in a hall overlooking white mountain tops. It’s snowing. In front of me stands an avatar that explains to me what we can do together in this virtual space. He jumps away but I can still hear his voice from behind me. He fetches a chair and hands it to me. I grab it and inspect it. The next moment, a video starts playing on the wall. Later, my host shows me how to draw in three dimensions, how to make sticky notes, how to share a PC desktop, and how to use other collaboration tools. This experience took place at FAKE Production, a Helsinki-based digital image, animation, and VR/AR studio. With VR glasses and hand-held controllers, I had tried out Glue, their universal collaboration platform. This is a soon-to-be-released service that you can use with VR/AR gear and on mobile and desktop devices. Glue is also one of the solutions tested in an experimental project called Expert assistance using VR and AR glasses. In this project, Sovelto, a Finnish educational company, wanted to explore the possibilities of using VR and AR solutions for field service. Over ten organizations took part in the project, which received funding from KIRA-digi, the national built environment digitalization program. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    August 19, 2015 —
    In an unusual flurry of occupational safety related activity, the Virginia courts decided two cases in the last week relating to either the review of occupational safety regulations themselves or their enforcement. In Nat’l College of Business & Technology Inc. v. Davenport (.pdf), the Virginia Court of Appeals considered what constitutes a “serious” violation of the exposure to asbestos Virginia Occupational Safety & Health (VOSH) regulations. The facts found by the Salem, Virginia Circuit Court were that employees of the petitioner college were exposed to asbestos insulation when they were required to enter a boiler room to retrieve paper files. However, no evidence was presented regarding the length of time or level of exposure at the Circuit Court level. Despite the lack of evidence regarding the level or extent of exposure, the Circuit Court upheld the VOSH citation for exposure and the level of violation at a “serious” level with the attendant penalty. The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed with the second finding. The appellate court determined that the lack of evidence regarding the level of exposure (whether length or extent) made the serious level violation an error. The Court stated that merely presenting evidence that asbestos is a carcinogen is not enough given the number of carcinogenic materials in existence and then remanded the case back to Circuit Court to reconsider the penalty level. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Timely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with Insurer

    June 21, 2017 —
    I harp on notifying a liability insurer in writing once a claim is asserted against you. As soon as possible. I harp on this because as an insured you want to remove any doubt or argument that the insurer was prejudiced due to a lack of timely notice. In a recent opinion, Zurich American Insurance Co. v. European Tile and Floors, Inc., 2017 WL 2427172 (M.D.Fla. 2017), the insurer moved for summary judgment in a coverage action arguing that its insured failed to provide it timely written notice. Specifically, the insurer argued that the insured violated the clause in the liability policy that states: 2. Duties in the Event of Occurrence, Offense, Claim or Suit
      b. If a claim is made or “suit” is brought against any insured, you must:
    1. Immediately record the specifics of the claim or “suit” and the date received; and
    2. Notify us as soon as practicable.
    You must see to it that we receive written notice of the claim or “suit” as soon as practicable.
      c. You and any other insured must:
    1. Immediately send us copies of any demands, notices, summonses or legal papers received in connection with the claim or “suit”;
    2. Authorize us to obtain records and other information;
    3. Cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or defense of the claim or “suit”; and
    4. Assist us, upon our request, in the enforcement of any right against any person or organization which may be liable to the insured because of injury or damage to which this insurance may also apply.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

    Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    June 29, 2017 —
    The significant issues test to determine the prevailing party in construction lien actions (which, by the way, also applies to breach of contract actions) applies to appellate attorney’s fees too! Under this test, the trial court has discretion to determine which party prevailed on the significant issues of the case for purposes of attorney’s fees. The trial court also has discretion to determine that neither party was the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. In a recent decision, Bauer v. Ready Windows Sales & Service Corp., 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1417a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), there were competing motions for appellate attorney’s fees. Both parties believed they should be deemed the prevailing party under Florida Statute s. 713.29 (statute that authorizes prevailing party attorney’s fees under Florida’s Construction Lien Law). The appellate court held that neither party was the prevailing party under the significant issues test: “[W]e conclude that each party lost on their appeal, while each party successfully defended that part of the judgment in their favor on the other party’s cross-appeal. Because both parties prevailed on significant issues, this Court finds that appellate fees are not warranted for either party.” Bauer, supra. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com