BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    Resolving Condominium Construction Defect Warranty Claims in Maryland

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Just Hanging Around”

    Court’s Ruling on SB800 “Surprising to Some”

    Wall Enclosing Georgia Neighborhood Built for Walking Dead TV Show

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    The “Up” House is “Up” for Sale

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    Cultivating a Company Culture Committed to Safety, Mentorship and Education

    Georgia Supreme Court Determines Damage to "Other Property" Not Necessary for Finding Occurrence

    Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

    Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Before and After the Storm: Know Your Insurance Rights, Coverages and Obligations

    Defining Construction Defects

    Kaboom! Illinois Applies the Anti-Subrogation Rule to Require a Landlord’s Subrogating Property Insurer to Defend a Third-Party Complaint Against Tenants

    Not So Fast, My Friend: Pacing and Concurrent Delay

    Chambers USA 2021 Recognizes Five Partners and Two Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    TOLLING AGREEMENTS: Construction Defect Lawyers use them to preserve Association Warranty Claims during Construction Defect Negotiations with Developers

    Washington Supreme Court Interprets Ensuing Loss Exception in All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

    COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

    Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood Obtains Summary Judgment Determining Insurer Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify

    Risk Transfer: The Souffle of Construction Litigation

    Ten ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Miami's Condo Craze Burns Out on Strong Dollar

    Case Remanded for Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    NYPD Investigating Two White Flags on Brooklyn Bridge

    Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent

    U.K. Broadens Crackdown on Archaic Property Leasehold System

    Repair Cost Exceeding Actual Cash Value Does Not Establish “Total Loss” Under Fire Insurance Policy

    Planes, Trains and Prevailing Wages. Ok, No Planes, But Trains and Prevailing Wages Yes

    Texas Federal Court Upholds Professional Services Exclusion to Preclude Duty to Defend

    NYC Shuts 9 Pre-Kindergartens for Health, Safety Issues

    New FAR Rule Mandates the Use of PLAs on Large Construction Projects

    Fixing That Mistake

    Back to Basics – Differing Site Conditions

    Renters Who Bought Cannot Sue for Construction Defects

    Construction Contracts and The Uniform Commercial Code: When Does it Apply and Understanding the Pre-Dominant Factor Test

    Traub Lieberman Partner Kathryn Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Secure Final Summary Judgment in Favor of Homeowner’s Insurance Company

    Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications

    How Will Today’s Pandemic Impact Tomorrow’s Construction Contracts?

    Guarantor’s Liability on Partially Secured Debts – The Impacts of Pay Down Provisions in Serpanok Construction Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC et al.

    California Rejects Judgments By Confession Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1132

    Mediation is (Almost) Always Worth a Shot

    No Subrogation, Contribution Rights for Carrier Defending Construction Defect Claim

    One More Thing Moving From California to Texas: Wildfire Risk

    A Good Examination of Fraud, Contract and Negligence Per Se

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

    ASCE Statement on House Failure to Pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    ASCE Statement on Calls to Suspend the Federal Gas Tax
    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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    September 12, 2022 —
    In a case brought before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington won a motion for summary judgment in favor of their client, the owner of a residential property (“Property Owner”) in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The Property Owner had retained a Construction Company (“Construction Company” or “Contractor”) to perform renovations to the residence, which included building a new staircase. The Plaintiff alleged that while walking down a set of temporary wooden steps on the property, the third step broke, which caused him to fall and resulted in the alleged injuries. The Plaintiff brought suit against the Property Owner and Construction Company for personal injuries as a result of the alleged fall. In the contract between the Property Owner and the Construction Company, it is stated that “[the Contractor] shall be solely responsible for all construction methods and materials and for coordinating all portions of the Work….The Contractor warrants to [the Property Owner] that all materials and equipment incorporated are new and that all work shall be of good quality and free of defects or faults.” The contract continues to state that the Construction Company shall indemnify and hold harmless the Property Owner against all claims, which includes damages, losses, expenses, legal fees and other costs that might arise from the Construction Company’s performance of the work under the contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com

    Home Prices Rose in Fewer U.S. Markets in Fourth Quarter

    February 12, 2014 —
    Prices for single-family homes rose in 73 percent of U.S. cities in the fourth quarter, fewer than in the previous three months, as surging values in the past two years started to reduce affordability. The median transaction price for an existing home climbed from a year earlier in 119 of 164 metropolitan areas measured, the National Association of Realtors said in a report today. In the third quarter, 88 percent of markets had increases. While tight inventories and improving employment are bolstering the housing recovery, home-price gains are poised to decelerate as an increase in mortgage rates from record lows cuts into affordability. Values have been rising faster than incomes, particularly in the West, the Realtors group said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

    Water Damage: Construction’s Often Unnoticed Threat

    November 02, 2020 —
    Fire damage to commercial buildings might get headlines, but water damage, whether to projects under construction or completed buildings, delivers massive financial blows to owners, developers and contractors. The impact is massive, reaching many billions of dollars per year. One water leak on the 19th floor at a construction site of a high-end apartment building in New York City resulted in $30 million in property damage and millions in delayed delivery penalties. Imagine this all-too-typical scenario: A 20-story building has thousands of pipe connections and many tens of thousands throughout the entire building. It only takes one of those joints failing, perhaps due to human oversight. Early on a Saturday morning when no one is onsite, one of the connections inside a wall begins to leak, slowly at first. In a couple hours the connection fails completely, sending a cascade of water into the building. The site is located next to a highway, so the security guards don’t hear the water flowing. The leak goes undetected until crews come back onsite on Monday morning. By that point, lower levels of the building have been inundated with thousands of gallons of water that has destroyed construction material, carpeting and electrical switchgear. It’s flowed into the elevator pits and mechanical room. Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Dycian, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Dycian may be contacted at yaron@wint.ai

    Construction Lien Needs to Be Recorded Within 90 Days from Lienor’s Final Furnishing

    March 22, 2018 —

    A lienor needs to record its construction lien within 90 days of its final furnishing date. This final furnishing date excludes punchlist, warranty, or the lienor’s own corrective work. A lien recorded outside of the 90-day window will be deemed invalid.

    The opinion in In re: Jennerwein, 309 B.R. 385 (M.D. Fla. 2004) provides a good discussion of this 90-day window. This matter dealt with a debtor / owner’s bankruptcy where the owner was contesting the validity of a construction lien by its pool contractor. The owner contended that the lienor’s lien was recorded outside of this 90-day window thus rendering the lien invalid. The bankruptcy court was determining the validity of the lien.

    In this matter, the owner hired a swimming pool contractor to construct a pool. On October 25, 2002, the pool contractor installed pavers around the pool. After this was performed, the pool contractor realized the owner was unable to obtain the financing to pay for the pool. As a result, the pool contractor ceased doing any more improvements. But, neither the pool contractor nor the owner terminated the contract. Then, on November 27, 2002, the pool contractor sent a supervisor to the property to inspect the pool (work-in-place), the pool equipment, the installed pavers, made a list of the unfinished work, and remove any debris. On January 27, 2003, the pool contractor recorded its lien.

    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

    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

    November 21, 2018 —
    Ujjval Vyas is dignified, articulate and persistent. In past years he earned a law degree and a PhD where his thesis concerned Philip Johnson and architectural modernism. He is a founder of a hydrogen energy company. He is also leading a crusade, largely by himself, advocating that designers should be held to a "clients come first" approach applied to other professionals—an idea that would burden engineers and architects with the weight of vastly increased legal liability. The reactions to his ideas in the past have ranged from scornful to sympathetic. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
    Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

    Court Says KBR Construction Costs in Iraq were Unreasonable

    August 27, 2014 —
    Mike Bosse of Bernstein Shur, analyzed a case involving Kellogg Brown and Root Services Inc. (KBR) and the U.S. Army for services that KBR provided during Operation Iraqi Freedom, according to JDSupra Business Advisor: “The court case involved KBR’s construction of dining facility services near Mosul, Iraq under a cost-plus fee arrangement. Under this contractual arrangement, all allowable costs were reimbursed by the government plus the contractor was paid an additional fee.” KBR first started on a prefabricated metal dining hall that would serve 2,500 people, but part way into building they were told to stop construction and to instead start on a new reinforced concrete building that would serve almost three times as many people. “After construction was finished, a defense contract auditing agency suspended some of the payments to KBR and instead of the $12.5 million it expected to receive, KBR was paid only $6.7 million,” reported JDSupra Business Advisor. “After trial, the court concluded KBR did not meet its burden to show the costs it incurred were reasonable under the circumstances.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Lawsuit Gives Teeth to Massachusetts Pay Law

    September 16, 2024 —
    “The Massachusetts Legislature passed the state’s Prompt Pay Act 14 years ago to improve the downstream flow of money on most large-scale private construction projects. While the act established detailed protocols for administering applications for payment and other important construction phase processes, several questions about its interpretation and impact remained unanswered. Over the years, I watched as a significant portion of the Massachusetts design and construction community either ignored the law’s exacting requirements or were unaware of their applicability. The first indication of how the act would be interpreted came in 2022, when the state appeals court decided Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners LLC. In that case, the court strictly construed the act. It held that an owner (and its agent) who failed to promptly advise the project’s general contractor of specific factual and legal reasons why it was withholding payment, coupled with a failure to certify that funds were being withheld in good faith, violated the law—making the contractor liable for the unpaid funds. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joseph Barra, Robinson+Cole
    Mr. Barra may be contacted at jbarra@rc.com

    North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims

    January 04, 2023 —
    On December 16, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 2022 N.C. LEXIS 1122 (Dec. 16, 2022), in which it addressed coverage issues arising out of claims by individuals alleging injury from exposure to benzene contained in the insured’s products. Affirming in part and reversing in part the intermediate appellate court’s decision, the court held: (1) an “exposure trigger” applied; (2) defense and indemnity costs were subject to pro-rata allocation; and (3) vertical exhaustion applied to the duty to defend under certain umbrella policies. Two justices concurred in part and dissented in part. I. Background In Radiator Specialty, the insured (RSC) was named in hundreds of underlying suits arising from individual plaintiffs’ alleged exposure to benzene contained in its products. Between 1971 and 2012, RSC was insured under primary, umbrella and excess liability policies issued by various insurers. In 2013, RSC sued the insurers in North Carolina state court, seeking coverage for approximately $45 million in defense and indemnity costs incurred for the underlying claims. In 2016, the trial court decided motions for summary judgment on a number of coverage issues. Following a bench trial in 2018, the trial court entered final judgment, which required the insurers to reimburse $1.8 million of RSC’s past costs. The rulings were appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which issued a decision in 2020. In 2021, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted RSC’s and certain insurers’ petitions for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP