BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut 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


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

    Oregon Condo Owners Make Construction Defect Claim

    Serving the 558 Notice of Construction Defect Letter in Light of the Statute of Repose

    Trial Court's Award of Contractual Fees to Public Adjuster Overturned

    Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

    Keeping KeyArena's Landmark Lid Overhead at Climate Pledge Arena Redevelopment Is A 22,000-Ton Balancing Act

    90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    Weed Property Owner Gets Smoked Under Insurance Policy

    Timely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with Insurer

    EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

    Oregon Bridge Closed to Inspect for Defects

    Another Defect Found on the Bay Bridge: Water Leakage

    A Property Tax Exemption, Misapplied, in Texas

    Preliminary Notices: Common Avoidable But Fatal Mistakes

    Illinois Appellate Court Addresses Professional Services Exclusion in Homeowners Policy

    Thanks for My 6th Year Running as a Construction Litigation Super Lawyer

    Sierra Pacific v. Bradbury Goes Unchallenged: Colorado’s Six-Year Statute of Repose Begins When a Subcontractor’s Scope of Work Ends

    Three Recent Cases Strike Down Liquidated Damages Clauses In Settlement Agreements…A Trend Or An Aberration?

    Thank Your Founding Fathers for Mechanic’s Liens

    Almost Half of Homes in New York and D.C. Are Now Losing Value

    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

    Congratulations to Partner Nicole Whyte on Being Chosen to Receive The 2024 ADL’s Marcus Kaufman Jurisprudence Award

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/16/24) – Chevron Ruling’s Impact on Construction Industry, New Kind of Public Housing and Policy Recommendations from Sustainable Building Groups

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

    Pipeline Safety Violations Cause of Explosion that Killed 8

    Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

    Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Depreciation Claims

    Build Me A Building As Fast As You Can

    WSHB Secures Victory in Construction Defect Case: Contractor Wins Bench Trial

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    Firm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in Germany

    When is an Indemnification Provision Unenforceable?

    Alexus Williams Receives Missouri Lawyers Media 2021 Women’s Justice Pro Bono Award

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    Georgia State and Local Governments Receive Expanded Authority for Conservation Projects

    Happy Thanksgiving from CDJ

    Florida Federal Court to Examine Issues of Alleged Arbitrator Conflicts of Interests in Panama Canal Case

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

    Berger: FIGG Is Slow To Hand Over All Bridge Collapse Data

    Louisiana Couple Sues over Defects in Foreclosed Home

    New York Team Secures Appellate Win on Behalf of National Home Improvement Chain

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    California Home Sellers Have Duty to Disclose Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Oregon Courthouse Reopening after Four Years Repairing Defects

    Century Communities Acquires Dunhill Homes Las Vegas Operations

    Owners Should Serve Request for Sworn Statement of Account on Lienor

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails
    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

    Kentucky Supreme Court Creates New “Goldilocks Zone” to Limit Opinions of Biomechanical Experts

    July 24, 2023 —
    Lexington, Ky. (June 26, 2023) – In a recent decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court placed stricter limitations on the opinions that biomechanical engineers may offer at trials in Kentucky courts. Specifically, the published opinion issued in Renot v. Securea, Supreme Ins. Co., 2023 Ky. LEXIS 163, recognizes a new space for the testimony of biomechanics experts – “The Goldilocks Zone.” Where is the Goldilocks Zone? The Goldilocks Zone is a perfect place in which the proffered testimony is neither too specific such that it wanders into the realm of medical causation, nor too general such that it fails to help a lay jury. Specifically, a biomechanical engineer’s expert testimony must be limited to the forces generated by the subject collision, the generally anticipated responses of a hypothetical person’s body to those forces, and the range of typical injuries resulting from such forces. Moreover, following Renot, a biomechanical engineer’s proffered opinions no longer may enter into the realm of diagnosing a specific medical condition associated with a traumatic injury. Instead, the question of whether a trauma actually caused or exacerbated a plaintiff’s injuries falls solely within the purview of a medical doctor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aimee E. Muller, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Muller may be contacted at Aimee.Muller@lewisbrisbois.com

    How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court

    April 03, 2019 —
    A recent decision issued by the Iowa Supreme Court, City of West Liberty, Iowa v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, highlights the importance for a policyholder to investigate a loss fully so that a wide range of evidence can be gathered and presented to show why there is coverage. The facts of City of West Liberty are a little unusual, but its lesson is not limited to Iowa insurance law; the issues litigated in this case show the value of investigating what caused a loss regardless of whether the loss occurred in California, Iowa, or elsewhere. Background on the Case City of West Liberty involved an insurance coverage dispute between a municipality owned electrical power plant and its insurance company. The dispute arose from a single adventurous squirrel who climbed onto an outdoor electrical transformer, touching two different parts of the power plant: a portion of the steel frame and a bare cable clamp. In doing so, the squirrel created a “conductive path,” in the words of the Iowa Supreme Court, between the high voltage clamp and the grounded frame. The path, once created, caused significant damage to the transformer and other electrical equipment at the city’s power plant. The city submitted a claim for the resulting damage, but the insurance company denied it. The insurer denied based on an exclusion in the insurance policy for property damage “caused by arcing or by electrical currents other than lightning.” According to the insurance company, the squirrel had no role in causing the damage; all of the damage resulted from arcing, which was excluded from coverage. The ensuing lawsuit focused upon whether the squirrel had a role in causing the damage. If yes, then there would be coverage according to Iowa insurance law; when a loss results from two causes, one of which is covered and the other is not, then there is coverage if the loss occurs from the covered cause. Due to this legal standard, the city contended that, apart from the arcing causing any damage, the squirrel caused the damage too. Because the insurance policy provided protection against mischievous actions performed by squirrels, the city contended that it was entitled to coverage, even if the excluded arcing contributed to the same damage too. Unfortunately, for the city, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected that argument, finding instead that the property damage resulted only from the arcing, which was excluded from coverage. In reaching its conclusion, the court absolved the squirrel of any wrongdoing, finding that it did not cause any of the property damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Graham C. Mills, Newmeyer & Dillion
    Mr. Mills may be contacted at graham.mills@ndlf.com

    Engineer Proposes Slashing Scope of Millennium Tower Pile Upgrade

    January 03, 2022 —
    Based on further structural analysis and the success of a pilot program that installed three permanent piles using modified procedures, the structural engineer-of-record for the delayed perimeter pile upgrade of the 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower in San Francisco has proposed a significantly reduced scope for the project that he says would still arrest settlement and allow the slow recovery of some of the condominium building’s tilt. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Implied Warranty Claims–Not Just a Seller’s Risk: Builders Beware!

    May 10, 2021 —
    One of the thorns in the side of every construction defect defense litigator is the implied warranty claim. The “implied warranty” is a promise that Colorado law is “implied” into every contract for a sale of a new home that the home was built in a workmanlike manner and is suitable for habitation. Defense attorneys dislike the implied warranty claim because it is akin to a strict liability standard. All that is required to provide the claim is that an aspect of construction is found to be defective — i.e., inconsistent with the building code or manufacturer’s installation instructions — regardless of whether the work was performed to the standard of care. The implied warranty claim is therefore easier to prove than a negligence claim, where a claimant must prove that a construction professional’s work fell below a standard of reasonable care. Additionally, it is not a defense to an implied warranty claim that the homeowners or the HOA are, themselves, partially liable for the defects where damage is due in part to insufficient or deferred maintenance, as it is for negligence claims. The only redeeming aspect to the implied warranty claim was that, until recently, it was believed that it could only be asserted by a first purchaser against the seller of an improvement, because the implied warranty arises out of the sale contract. Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals opinion in Brooktree Village Homeowners Association v. Brooktree Village, LLC, 19CA1635, decided on November 19, 2020, extended the reach of the implied warranty — though just how far remains to be seen. Specifically, a division of the Court of Appeals held that an HOA can assert implied warranty claims on behalf of its members for defects in common areas, even where there is no direct contractual relationship between the parties to base the warranty upon. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Carin Ramirez, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Ms. Ramirez may be contacted at ramirez@hhmrlaw.com

    Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

    February 02, 2017 —
    A customer shopping at Walmart’s outdoor garden center in Clarkston, Washington, reached down to brush aside a stick covering a price tag for bags of mulch stored on wooden pallets. The “stick” turned out to be a rattlesnake, and bit his hand. The customer sued Walmart on the legal basis of “premises liability,” claiming that as Walmart’s business invitee (one who enters the owner’s property primarily for the owner’s benefit), the store owed him a duty to warn or guard against hazardous conditions such as the rattlesnake. In many cases, a property owner’s duty to protect invitees applies only where the owner knows or reasonably should know of the hazardous condition. The owner’s liability therefore often hinges on where the hazard is located, how long it has been present, whether it has occurred in the past, and similar considerations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James R. Lynch, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
    Mr. Lynch may be contacted at jlynch@ac-lawyers.com

    Connecticut Appellate Court Breaks New Ground on Policy Exhaustion

    April 26, 2021 —
    The Connecticut Appellate Court recently issued a wide-ranging opinion, Continental Casualty Co. v. Rohr, Inc.,[1] which significantly extended the current restrictive view on when a general liability policy can be considered exhausted so as to trigger overlying excess coverage. The case marks a further step away from Judge Augustus Hand’s almost-century-old ruling in Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.,[2] which held that an underlying policy could be “exhausted” by a below-limits settlement as long as the insured was willing to “fill the gap” between the settlement amount and the limits of the policy.[3] In recent years, courts in California and elsewhere have increasingly walked back Zeig’s broad ruling – holding in Qualcomm v. Certain Underwriters,[4] for example, that an insured’s below-limits settlement with primary carriers does not exhaust the limits of primary coverage, or allow the insured to access overlying excess coverage.[5] Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Nevada chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses has said that Nevada’s construction defect and minimum wage laws are hampering job growth. The organization conducted a survey, and although only about two percent of the members responded, they passed the opinions of the group on to Governor Brian Sandoval. Sandoval has said, according to the report by Fox News Reno, that he wants the state to be more business friendly. He supports reforms to Nevada’s construction defect laws, saying that he’d “like to see some reform” on the issue of mandatory attorney’s fees.

    Randi Thompson, the spokesperson for the Nevada chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said that members of her organization would like to see current Nevada construction defect law revoked. She described current law as “driven towards lawyers and not toward protecting consumers.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Get to Know BJ Siegel: Former Apple Executive and Co-Founder of Juno

    April 10, 2023 —
    Don’t miss BJ Siegel’s keynote speech at WDBE in September 2023. In this interview, we learn how he’s revolutionizing sustainable housing as a consumer product, using digital tools and asset-light approaches, while transforming how companies manage their data and processes. Designing commercial concepts BJ Siegel is on a mission to reinvent the world of urban multifamily housing through his prop tech firm, Juno. As a co-founder, Siegel is dedicated to creating branded consumer products that seamlessly blend functionality with impact. But his journey in design didn’t start there. Siegel’s expertise began as an architect at a small design firm in San Francisco, where he honed his skills in exhibit and product design. This led him to create exhibit designs for Apple’s product launches at their Macworld Expos. Eventually, he became part of the team that explored innovative retail ideas to take Apple’s products directly to consumers. 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