BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure 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


    Study May Come Too Late for Construction Defect Bill

    Homebuilders Call for Housing Tax Incentives

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052: The “Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013.”

    Homebuilding Design Goes 3D

    Client Alert: Absence of a Court Reporter at a Civil Motion Hearing May Preclude Appellate Review

    Recommendations and Drafting Considerations for Construction Contingency Clauses Part III

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

    Duty to Defend Requires Payments Under Policy's Supplemental Payments Provision

    Port Authority Revises Plans for $10B Midtown NYC Bus Terminal Replacement

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is Proud to Announce Jeannette Garcia Has Been Elected as Secretary of the Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County!

    Former SNC-Lavalin CEO Now Set for Trial in Bribe Case

    Owners Should Serve Request for Sworn Statement of Account on Lienor

    Dust Obscures Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling on “Direct Physical Loss”

    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

    Mondaq’s 2023 Construction Comparative Guide

    California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

    Construction Defect Lawsuit May Affect Home Financing

    Award Doubled in Retrial of New Jersey Elevator Injury Case

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Arbitration Motion Practice

    US-Mexico Border Wall Bids Include Tourist Attraction, Solar Panels

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    Florida Court Gives Parties Assigned a Subrogation Claim a Math Lesson

    Collapse of Improperly Built Deck Not An Occurrence

    As Fracture Questions Remain, Team Raced to Save Mississippi River Bridge

    Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Applied to Pass-Through Agreements

    Developer Transition - Maryland Condominiums

    London's Walkie Talkie Tower Voted Britain's Worst New Building

    Congratulations to Walnut Creek Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Associate Jeffrey Schilling for Winning a Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Their Client, a Regional Grocery Store!

    Senate’s Fannie Mae Wind-Down Plan Faces High Hurdles

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (05/11/22)

    Building 47 Bridges in Two Years

    Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes

    Labor Code § 2708 Presumption of Employer Negligence is Not Applicable Against Homeowners Who Hired Unlicensed Painting Company

    New Jersey Courts Sign "Death Knell" for 1979 Weedo Decision

    Homebuilder Predictions for Tallahassee

    Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact

    The Power of Planning: Four Key Themes for Mitigating Risk in Construction

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

    2017 Construction Outlook: Slow, Mature Growth, but No Decline, Expected

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    Couple Claims ADA Renovation Lead to Construction Defects

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle and Justyn Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    The One New Year’s Resolution You’ll Want to Keep if You’re Involved in Public Works Projects

    Newmeyer & Dillion Selected to 2017 OCBJ’s Best Places to Work List

    Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit

    Hunton Insurance Practice, Attorneys Recognized in 2024 Edition of The Legal 500 United States

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: ERIN CANNON-WELLS

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 45 White and Williams Lawyers
    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

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

    January 05, 2017 —
    Jeremiah Welch and Michael Barrese recently had a big win in front of the Michigan Court of Appeals. The case (Skanska-Schweitzer v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan) involved Skanska’s claim for defense and indemnity from Farm Bureau Ins. Co. of Michigan for an injury to an elementary school student arising out of the removal of playground equipment by a landscaping company, Horrocks. Farm Bureau denied coverage because it claimed that the work was not part of Horrocks’ contract with the project owner and therefore Skanska, the construction manager, did not qualify as an additional insured on the policy. SDV argued that the AI endorsement did not specify that Horrocks’ work be performed as part of its contract with the owner; it only required that the work be performed “for Skanska.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Welch may be contacted at jmw@sdvlaw.com

    Gordon & Rees Ranks #5 in Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation

    June 29, 2020 —
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has been ranked the #5 construction law firm in the nation by Construction Executive in the magazine’s 2020 ranking of The Top 50 Construction Law Firms. Gordon & Rees is the only California-based law firm to rank in the Top 25. The firm was ranked in the Top 10 in more specific areas as well.
    • #1 in the Top 10 Law Firms Ranked by Most Locations
    • #2 in the Top 10 Law Firms Ranked by Number of Construction Attorneys
    • #6 in the Top 10 Law Firms Ranked by Number of States Admitted to Practice
    “With offices throughout the nation and outstanding construction attorneys in many of those offices, we are able to offer our construction clients a diverse range of legal services wherever they do business,” said Ernie Isola partner and co-chair of the firm’s construction practice group. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

    Shifting the Risk of Delay by Having Float Go Your Way

    July 05, 2021 —
    Critical path delay plays a central role in allocating responsibility for project delay. The interrelated concept of concurrency is also frequently determinative of entitlement on a range of claims including by owners for liquidated damages and by contractors for delay damages. What constitutes critical/concurrent delay, however, is hotly debated by scheduling experts. The lack of real consensus regarding how critical/concurrent delay should be determined and analyzed has created significant uncertainty in scheduling disputes. Indeed, courts have adopted differing and at times conflicting theories of concurrency that can produce divergent outcomes for the parties. In an effort to reduce uncertainty, stakeholders have increasingly adopted specialized contractual provisions and scheduling techniques which have significant implications for the evaluation of the companion concepts of criticality and concurrency. One such mechanism is float sequestration. Regardless of whether float sequestration is ultimately in the construction industry’s broader interest, stakeholders must be able to recognize its use and appreciate the implications for delay disputes on their projects. Simply defined, float is the number of days an activity can be delayed before affecting the project’s critical path (i.e., the longest chain of activities which determines the project’s minimal duration). Typically, only delays affecting the critical path can produce concurrent delay. Consequently, the concept of float is integral to understanding and resolving issues of both criticality and concurrency. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher J. Brasco, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP and Matthew D. Baker, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP Mr. Brasco may be contacted at cbrasco@watttieder.com Mr. Baker may be contacted at mbaker@watttieder.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

    October 16, 2018 —
    In 2010, the Virginia Supreme Court held in Uniwest Const., Inc. v. Amtech Elevator Servs., Inc., that Va. Code Sec. 11-4.1 renders completely void and unenforceable any indemnification provision in a construction contract between a contractor and subcontractor that seeks to indemnify the indemnified party from its own negligent acts. In short, the Virginia Supreme Court stated that such overly broad provisions violate Section 11-4.1. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia Federal District Court examined a provision in a contract between a designer/architect and a contractor or owner on a project. In Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Lessard Design Inc. the Court examined the application of Section 11-4.1 to the following provision of a design contract where Lessard, the indemnitor, agreed to:
    [i]ndemnify, defend and hold the Owner, Owner’s Developer, and Owner’s and Owner’s Developer’s wholly owned affiliates and the agents, employees and officers of any of them harmless from and against any and all losses, liabilities, expenses, claims, fines and penalties, costs and expenses, including, but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs relating to the services performed by the Architect hereunder . . .
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Construction Defects through the Years

    July 31, 2013 —
    Builder has an article on the some building changes over the years that have led to construction defect problems. Is insulation evil? Well, that what some thought in the 1930s. Early attempts at insulating walls trapped moisture causing paint to peel. Then in the 1960s, the rise of aluminum wire lead to an even more serious problem: house fires. And it continues. The plastic piping that was though to last forever when it was installed in the late 70s turned out to have about a decade of life. It’s a short forever. Eventually, polybutylene plumbing was forbidden by building codes. The article has a series of building innovations that seemed like great ideas at the time, but were later found to be problematic. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Claims for Bad Faith and Punitive Damages Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    August 02, 2017 —
    The court denied the insurer's motion for partial summary judgment seeking to dismiss claims for bad faith and for punitive damages. Van Der Weide v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101735 (N.D. Iowa June 30, 2017). The homeowner sued the insured general contractor after water was found leaking into the home, causing significant water damage. Cincinnati rejected the general contractor's tender and denied any duty to defend, contending that the alleged defects were discovered after Cincinnati's policy period had ended. Cincinnati was advised that two experts for the insured would testify that the property damage occurred due to construction defects and that the damage began shortly after completion of the home. Cincinnati still refused to defend. 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

    Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act

    September 13, 2021 —
    On August 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the Idaho property of Michael and Chantell Sackett was a regulated wetlands under the then-controlling 1977 EPA rules defining “waters of the United States,” and that the Sacketts dredging and filling of their property was subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or EPA. EPA’s case, as it has been for many years, was based on 2008 EPA and Corps inspection reports and Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test as the controlling opinion in the 2006 Supreme Court case, Rapanos v. United States. The Sacketts’ argument was that the text of the Clean Water Act, as interpreted by Justice Scalia and three other Justices, was controlling, but for several years, the Ninth Circuit has relied on Justice Kennedy’s opinion in these CWA controversies. The court’s opinion expressed considerable sympathy for the Sacketts as they negotiated the thicket of EPA’s regulatory processes, but it could not disregard circuit precedent. A few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled, in a unanimous decision, that EPA’s then extant administrative compliance orders were arbitrary and capricious. (See Sackett v. US, 566 US 120 (2015).) After that decision, the case was remanded to the federal district court, where it lingered for several more years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Construction Warranties and the Statute of Repose – Southern States Chemical, Inc v. Tampa Tank & Welding Inc.

    January 20, 2020 —
    In a recent holding by the Georgia Court of Appeals, the court held that Georgia’s eight-year statute of repose applied to bar the project owner’s warranty claims. The renovation work by the contractor on the owner’s chemical tank constituted an improvement of real property, and thus, the statute of repose bared any claims eight years after substantial completion thereof. In addition, the court rejected the project owner’s claim that it qualified as a third-party beneficiary of an extended warranty contained in a report given by a subcontractor to the contractor. Factual Background In 2000, Southern States Phosphate and Fertilizer Company (“Southern States”) hired Tampa Tank & Welding, Inc (“Tampa Tank”) to renovate a tank to hold sulfuric acid. The parties’ written contract contained an express one-year warranty for material and workmanship from the date of completion. Two years later, in January 2002, the tank renovation was completed. Tampa Tank contracted with Corrosion Control Inc. (“CCI”) to design, assist with, and test the cathodic corrosion system. CCI provided only consultation and did not provide any onsite installation. Upon completion of installation, CCI supplied a report to Tampa Tank that the system was properly installed and fully functioning. Additionally, a post–installation report from CCI to Tampa Tank calculated an estimated life expectancy of forty-three to forty-five years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com