BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction experts
    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


    Zoning Hearing Notice Addressed by Georgia Appeals Court

    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

    An Era of Legends

    Coverage Denied for Faulty Blasting and Improper Fill

    Government Claims Act Does Not Apply to Actions Solely Seeking Declaratory Relief and Not Monetary Relief

    Temecula Office Secures Approval for Development of 972-Acre Community on Behalf of Pulte Homes

    NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

    Insurers' Motion to Determine Lack of Occurrence Fails

    Concerns About On-the-job Safety Persist

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

    Drones Give Inspectors a Closer Look at Bridges

    Meet D1's Neutrals Series: BILL FRANCZEK

    Homebuyers Get Break as Loan Rates Defy Fed Tapering: Mortgages

    The First UK Hospital Being Built Using AI Technology

    Message from the Chair: Kelsey Funes (Volume I)

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Eleven WSHB Attorneys Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    Prevailing HOAs Not Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in Enforcement Actions Brought Under Davis-Stirling

    Fourth Circuit Questions EPA 2020 Clean Water Act 401 Certification Rule Tolling Prohibition

    Structural Defects in Thousands of Bridges in America

    Waive It Goodbye: Despite Evidence to the Contrary, Delaware Upholds an AIA Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    School Board Sues Multiple Firms over Site Excavation Problem

    Lewis Brisbois Listed as Top 10 Firm of 2022 on Leopard Solutions Law Firm Index

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

    Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

    Is Performance Bond Liable for Delay Damages?

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

    No Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    PFAS and the Challenge of Cleaning Up “Forever”

    What Happens When Dave Chappelle Buys Up Your Town

    The Ghosts of Tariffs Past May Help Us in the Future

    New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose

    Homeowner’s Claims Defeated Because “Gravamen” of Complaint was Fraud, not Breach of Contract

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Counsel Investigating Coverage Can be Sued for Invasion of Privacy

    Coverage Found For Cleanup of Superfund Site Despite Pollution Exclusion

    Supply Chain Delay Recommendations

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas

    U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

    Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

    Prime Contractor & Surety’s Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Miller Act Lawsuit

    EEOC Chair Issues New Report “Building for the Future: Advancing Equal Employment Opportunity in the Construction Industry”

    Surety Bond Producers Keep Eye Out For Illegal Waivers

    How the Cumulative Impact Theory has been Defined

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    SFAA and Coalition of Partners Encourage Lawmakers to Require Essential Surety Bonding Protections on All Federally-Financed Projects Receiving WIFIA Funds

    Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Holds that Nearly All Project Labor Agreements are Illegal

    Trucks looking for Defects Create Social Media Frenzy
    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

    ASCE Statement on Biden Administration Permitting Action Plan

    May 23, 2022 —
    Washington, DC. – ASCE applauds the Biden Administration for the development of their new Permitting Action Plan aimed at accelerating the federal permitting and environmental review process for major infrastructure projects across the country. The plan leverages permitting provisions that were included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and aims to ensure that the federal environmental review and permitting processes will be efficient, transparent, guided by science, and shaped by meaningful input from the public and government agencies. One of the key recommendations in the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure was to streamline the project permitting process across infrastructure sectors, while ensuring appropriate safeguards and protections are in place. Therefore, ASCE believes that the most recent plan is a step in the right direction to ensure that projects can be delivered on-time, and on-budget, while maintaining the rigorous environmental review process. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 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

    Noncumulation Clause Limits Coverage to One Occurrence

    January 07, 2015 —
    Injury suffered by children of different families living at different times in the same apartment was limited to one occurrence under the policy's noncumulation clause. Nesmith v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 3350 (N.Y. Nov. 25, 2014). The landlord had a liability policy issued by Allstate. The declarations page stated there was a $500,000 limit for "each occurrence." The policy contained the following noncumulation clause:
    Regardless of the number of insured persons, injured persons, claims, claimants or policies involved, our total liability . . . for damages resulting from one accidental loss will not exceed the limit shown on the declarations page. All bodily injury . . . resulting from one accidental loss or from continuous or repeated exposure to the same general conditions is considered the result of one accidental loss.
    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

    Jury Could Have Found That Scissor Lift Manufacturer Should Have Included “Better” Safety Features

    January 02, 2024 —
    A few years ago I listened to an NPR segment called “What Can Kids Learn by Doing Dangerous Things?” It was about a summer program called the Tinkering School where kids can learn to build things, using tools of course, including power tools. The founder of the program, Gever Tulley, also wrote a book entitled 50 Dangerous Things (You Should Let Your Children Do), in which he argued that while well-intentioned, children today are overly protected, and that giving children exposure to “slightly” dangerous things can help foster independence, responsibility, and problem-solving as well as a healthy dose of caution. The plaintiff in the next case might have benefitted from that program. In Camacho v. JLG Industries Inc., 93 Cal.App.5th 809 (2023), the Court of Appeals examined whether the manufacturer of a scissor lift should have incorporated “better” safety features when a construction worker fell from the lift. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

    October 28, 2011 —

    The US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”

    The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”

    D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:

    “(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”

    The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.

    The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.

    Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.

    The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Zero-Energy Commercial Buildings Increase as Contractors Focus on Sustainability

    February 10, 2020 —
    Imagine a functional, low energy commercial building that annually consumes only as much power as the building creates with on-site, clean, renewable resources. From coast to coast, there is considerable momentum for zero-energy (ZE) buildings, also known as ZEB’s or net-zero energy buildings (NZEBs). Although still an emerging market, the growth trend for ZEBs is steep. The world’s net-zero energy market for commercial and residential projects is expected to exceed $1.4 trillion by 2035. The number of ZEBs across North America has dramatically increased since 2010 which encompasses about 80 million square feet of commercial building space. ZE has captured the attention of building owners, developers, architects, engineers, contractors, designers, policymakers and others who see its potential to efficiently use clean energy resources to reduce the substantial carbon footprint of buildings. Real Applications of Net Zero From 2012 to 2019, the number of ZE projects has increased ten-fold. According to the “2019 Getting to Zero Project List” released in May 2019 by the New Buildings Institute, a nonprofit organization striving to achieve better energy performance in commercial buildings, the total number of certified, verified and emerging ZE projects grew to 607 in 2019. New projects continue to appear regularly. Today, hundreds of ZE buildings, including commercial buildings of all types (including retail, office, warehouse, hotel, educational and government) are being developed. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey S. Wertman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

    October 21, 2015 —
    The court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015). Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on April 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired. After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. Selective filed suit and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 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

    Nation’s Top Court Limits EPA's Authority in Clean Air Case

    July 25, 2022 —
    The U.S. Supreme Court has limited the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions, but the ruling was more limited than some environmental advocates had feared. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Drop in Civil Trials May Cause Problems for Construction Defect Cases

    August 27, 2013 —
    Over the last fifty years, the number of lawsuits that have been settled by trial have dropped sharply, according to Kenneth Childs, writing in the Idaho Business Review. Childs notes that in 1962, 11.5% of federal civil cases were resolved at trial, but in 2002, only 1.8 % percent went to trial. He makes the supposition that, due to their complexity, construction defect trials are even less likely to be resolved at trial. Instead, they are being resolved in mandatory arbitration. Views on arbitration have changed over the years and the courts have gone from what he describes as “somewhat hostile to it” to embracing, encouraging, and even mandating it. Childs notes there are some problems to this climate of arbitration. He notes that arbitrators can “operate by their own rules and according to their own standards.” The decisions made by arbitrators “are not subject to appellate review,” which allows arbitrators “to ignore the law entirely.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of