BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture 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


    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling

    Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens

    Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property

    OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard Is in Flux

    The Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Trial to Begin

    California Pipeline Disaster Brings More Scandal for PG&E

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dispose of Hail Damage Claim Fails

    Ninth Circuit: Speculative Injuries Do Not Confer Article III Standing

    Is Arbitration Okay Under the Miller Act? It Is if You Don’t Object

    Condominium Association Wins $5 Million Judgment against Developer

    Good News on Prices for Some Construction Materials

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, Texas

    Ohio Supreme Court Holds No Occurence Arises from Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    #5 CDJ Topic: David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms

    New Jersey Court Washes Away Insurer’s Waiver of Subrogation Arguments

    Want to Stay Up on Your Mechanic’s Lien Deadlines? Write a Letter or Two

    No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period

    Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

    An Obligation to Provide Notice and an Opportunity to Cure May not End after Termination, and Why an Early Offer of Settlement Should Be Considered on Public Works Contracts

    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    House Approves $715B Transportation and Water Infrastructure Bill

    Dispute Review Boards for Real-Time Dispute Avoidance and Resolution

    Massive Wildfire Near Boulder, Colo., Destroys Nearly 1,000 Homes and Businesses

    Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices

    Waiver of Subrogation and Lack of Contractual Privity Bars Commercial Tenants’ Claims

    Home Construction Thriving in Lubbock

    Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds

    Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess

    Association Bound by Arbitration Provision in Purchase-And-Sale Contracts and Deeds

    Another Reason to Always Respond (or Hensel Phelps Wins One!)

    Meet BWBO’s 2024 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    Arkansas Federal Court Fans the Product Liability Flames Utilizing the Malfunction Theory

    Congratulations to our 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    Board of Directors Guidance When Addressing Emergency Circumstances Occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Insured's Testimony On Expectation of Coverage Deemed Harmless

    Indemnity Clauses—What do they mean, and what should you be looking for?

    Court Concludes That COVID-19 Losses Can Qualify as “Direct Physical Loss”

    Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

    Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor

    Insured Cannot Sue to Challenge Binding Appraisal Decision

    Trio of White and Williams Attorneys Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

    The Regulations on the Trump Administration's Chopping Block

    Tetra Tech-U.S. Cleanup Dispute in San Francisco Grows

    WA Supreme Court Allows Property Owner to Sue Engineering Firm for Lost Profits

    San Diego: Compromise Reached in Fee Increases for Affordable Housing

    Design Professional Liens: A Blueprint

    Quarter Four a Good One for Luxury Homebuilder
    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

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    February 21, 2013 —
    The Las Vegas Review-Journal is supporting efforts to reform the state’s construction defect laws. Although the intention was to “protect homeowners from the costs of shoddy workmanship,” they state the laws have instead “enriched lawyers and made housing more expensive.” The take the Las Vegas homeowner association scandal as a sign that reform is needed. A further sign of needed reform is that during a time when new home sales decreased, construction defect claims more than tripled. The editorial notes that “current law allows lawsuits to be brought for cosmetic imperfections that pose no risks.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    July 20, 2011 —

    The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.

    The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.

    Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.

    After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.

    The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”

    Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”

    The court concluded:

    Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Boilerplate Contract Language on Permits could cause Problems for Contractors

    March 19, 2014 —
    Craig Martin on his blog Construction Contractor Advisor discusses the potential problems for a contractor that a “boilerplate contract” could cause: “A recent case revealed the problems a contractor had with permits when the contractor’s estimate contemplated an easy permitting process and compliance, but in actuality it was much, much more difficult.” Martin cites the case Bell/Heery v. United States, where a contractor discovered that the permit process would be much more time-consuming and expensive than originally planned. When Bell/Heery asked for additional funds to cover the additional costs, the “contracting officer rejected the request, finding that Bell/Heery had assumed the risk of the permitting process and it was liable for any costs associated with the permitting process and construction methods required by the permitting process.” “Bell/Heery appealed to the Court of Claims,” but lost the battle. The contractor had to absorb $7 million in costs to comply with the required permits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of WRDA 2024

    January 07, 2025 —
    WASHINGTON, DC. – ASCE applauds Congress for passing the bipartisan Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) for 2024, Congress's biennial authorization for new U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) projects. WRDA 2024 authorizes 21 USACE water resources projects across 15 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, with a focus on waterway navigation, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, flood risk management, and ecosystem restoration. This legislation will support vital port and inland waterways projects through provisions such as an adjustment of the cost share formula for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF), which helps pay for major rehabilitation and construction efforts along navigation channels, and an increase in the depth at which federal port and harbor projects can receive federal assistance for construction and maintenance. These provisions can help raise the ports (B-) and inland waterways (D+) grades reflected in ASCE's 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, and we are thrilled to see WRDA 2024 prioritizing policies that will improve the nation's infrastructure systems. The latest agreement includes the reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program (NDSP) through 2028, a top legislative priority for ASCE and a critical program needed to improve the "D" grade that dams received in the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. The NDSP is the primary source of federal funding supporting state dam safety programs with inspection and monitoring activities, emergency preparedness, and staffing needs. The agreement also incorporates low-head dams into the National Inventory of Dams. These small structures can have deadly consequences when unaccounted for because they produce dangerous, undetectable currents. Incorporating them into the National Inventory of Dams will increase awareness and lead to more safety precautions that could save lives. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 160,000 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

    Arizona – New Discovery Rules

    May 16, 2018 —
    Effective July 1, 2018 New Rules of Civil Procedure are taking effect in Arizona on July 1, 2018. The new Rules will change how discovery works in civil litigation in the state. Here is a sneak peek at the changes that will impact your file handling the most: Tiered Discovery
    • How much discovery is allowed in a case will now depend on the amount and type of relief sought
    • Cases will be assigned to one of three tiers
    • Parties can agree on a tier assignment, the court can assign a tier, or a tier can be assigned based on the amount of damages, or a combination of monetary and non-monetary damages
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Belanger, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
    Mr. Belanger may be contacted at jbelanger@bremerwhyte.com

    Following California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos Coverage

    May 19, 2014 —
    Following California law, the federal district court adopted horizontal allocation to settle a dispute among carriers for an insured sued for selling asbestos products. New England Fire Ins. Corp. v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., Civil No. 3:12cv948 (D. Conn. April 8, 2014) [ruling here] The insured was a California-based corporation that sold plumbing supply products that contained asbestos. The insured was named in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits that were filed largely in California. The insured had primary and excess coverage for bodily injury claims. New England Fire Insurance issued an excess policy to the insured. The policy provided the insurer would be liable for the ultimate new loss in excess of the insureds underlying limit, which was defined as the amount equal to the limits of the underlying insurance, plus the applicable limits of any other underlying insurance collectible by the insured. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Colorado Passes Compromise Bill on Construction Defects

    May 03, 2017 —
    After four failed attempts, Colorado legislators have finally reached a compromise on construction defect legislation. This afternoon, HB17-1279 gained unanimous approval from the House Committee on State, Veterans, and Military Affairs. The bill is expected to pass both chambers easily and be signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper. Proponents say that a bill is needed spur more condominium construction in the state. They contend that homebuilders have been reluctant to construct multifamily projects in recent years based on a perceived fear that small groups of homeowners can file lawsuits in the name of their community associations without adequate the consent of other members. A 2013 study found that quality control and insurance costs only reduce homebuilder profits by a small amount, but concerns about litigation have nevertheless prompted some construction professionals to focus on constructing apartments and other products. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ritzy NYC Tower Developer Says Residents’ Lawsuit ‘Ill-Advised’

    January 17, 2022 —
    The developers of a Manhattan skyscraper that has become one of New York City’s toniest residences said the condo board is trying to squeeze money out of them with a lawsuit that claims bogus design flaws. The board is seeking $250 million from builders of the 1,396-foot residential tower at 432 Park Avenue that opened in 2015 on the so-called Billionaire’s Row. Their suit alleges the company that developers CIM Group and Macklowe Properties formed to build the structure failed to take into account its unusual height, leading to flooding, noise, vibrations and elevators that are prone to malfunctions. In a response to the suit filed Wednesday, the company called the building “a treasure” and the suit was “ill-advised.” While the structure needed to be “fine-tuned” when residents started to move in, the board stopped the builders from accessing the facilities and finishing the job “while manufacturing an ever-increasing list of demands,” most of which were not required, according to court filings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg