BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code 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


    No Coverage for Home Damaged by Falling Boulders

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers!

    The Word “Estimate” in a Contract Matters as to a Completion Date

    More Fun with Indemnity and Construction Contracts!

    Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community

    Wildfire Smoke Threatens to Wipe Out Decades of Air Pollution Progress

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Just Hanging Around”

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

    Ruling Dealing with Constructive Changes, Constructive Suspension, and the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

    Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts

    Contractors Board May Discipline Over Workers’ Comp Reporting

    Duty to Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Architect Sues over Bidding Procedure

    Surprising Dismissal of False Claims Act Case Based on Appointments Clause - What Does It Mean?

    FIFA Inspecting Brazil’s World Cup Stadiums

    Housing Advocacy Group Moved to Dissolve New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing

    Insurer Must Pay for Matching Siding of Insured's Buildings

    Will Claims By Contractors on Big Design-Build Projects Ever End?

    Tenants Who Negligently Cause Fires in Florida Beware: You May Be Liable to the Landlord’s Insurer

    ARUP, Rethinking Green Infrastructure

    California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

    The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

    Construction Contract Basics: No Damages for Delay

    OSHA’s New Severe Injury and Fatality Reporting Requirements, Are You Ready?

    How a 10-Story Wood Building Survived More Than 100 Earthquakes

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    2019 Promotions - New Partners at Haight

    The Prolonged Effects on Commercial Property From Extreme Weather

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

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

    You Don’t Have To Be a Consumer to Assert a FDUTPA Claim

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington and Associate Kevin Sullivan Win Summary Judgment Dismissing Homeowner’s Claim that Presented an Issue of First Impression in New Jersey

    Design-Assist, an Ambiguous Term Causing Conflict in the Construction Industry[1]

    Smart Cities Offer New Ideas for Connectivity

    Alleging Property Damage in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Colorado Requires Builders to Accommodate High-Efficiency Devices in New Homes

    Asbestos Client Alert: Court’s Exclusive Gatekeeper Role May not be Ignored or Shifted to a Jury

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces Three New Partners

    Tropical Storms Pile Up Back-to-Back-to-Back Out West

    School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty

    Herman Russell's Big Hustle

    Handling Construction Defect Claims – New Edition Released

    Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony

    New Jersey Appeals Court Ruled Suits Stand Despite HOA Bypassing Bylaw

    Penalty for Failure to Release Expired Liens

    Resilience: Transforming the Energy Sector – Navigating Land Issues in Solar and Storage Projects | Episode 3 (11.14.24)

    Boston Catwalk Collapse Injures Three Workers

    Defining Construction Defects

    Agile Project Management in the Construction Industry
    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

    Multiple Construction Errors Contributed to Mexico Subway Collapse

    June 21, 2021 —
    The May 3 collapse of an elevated section of the Line 12 subway in Mexico City that killed 26 passengers appears to have resulted from multiple construction faults, according to a risk management firm's preliminary report. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    URGENT: 'Catching Some Hell': Hurricane Michael Slams Into Florida

    October 16, 2018 —
    Panama City, Fla. (AP) -- Powerful Hurricane Michael slammed into the Florida Panhandle with terrifying winds of 155 mph Wednesday, splintering homes and submerging neighborhoods before continuing its destructive march inland across the Southeast. It was the most powerful hurricane to hit the continental U.S. in nearly 50 years and at least one death was reported during its passage. Supercharged by abnormally warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Category 4 storm crashed ashore in the early afternoon near Mexico Beach, a tourist town about midway along the Panhandle, a 200-mile (320-kilometer) stretch of white-sand beach resorts, fishing towns and military bases. After it ravaged the Panhandle, Michael entered south Georgia as a Category 3 hurricane — the most powerful in recorded history for that part of the neighboring state. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Fargo Shows Record Home Building

    October 01, 2013 —
    Home builders in the area of Fargo, North Dakota are describing growth in the area as “enormous.” Darrick Guthmiller, the president of the Home Builders Association of Fargo-Moorhead noted that in sixteen years of building homes, this was the best he’d seen. The Home Builders Association expects that next year might even be better. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Jersey Supreme Court Upholds $400 Million Award for Superstorm Sandy Damages

    February 22, 2021 —
    In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London,1 New Jersey’s highest court upheld an appellate decision2 finding that New Jersey Transit Corporation (“NJT”) was entitled to full coverage under its property insurance policy for damages caused by Superstorm Sandy. In July 2012, NJT secured a multi-layered “all risks” property insurance program from eleven insurers for the policy period of July 1, 2012, to July 1, 2013. The policies covered all perils and damage to NJT’s property unless specifically excluded. The primary layer, issued by Lexington Insurance Company, provided the first $50 million of coverage. The second layer provided coverage up to $100 million, the third layer provided an additional $175 million, and the fourth layer provided coverage of $125 million, for a total of $400 million in coverage. The excess layer insurers included Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Torus Specialty Insurance Company, and several other carriers. All participating insurers’ policies included a standard policy form and separate endorsements, some of which were included in all policies and some of which were unique to specific insurers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Kane may be contacted at kkane@sdvlaw.com

    Jersey City, New Jersey, to Get 95-Story Condo Tower

    January 21, 2015 —
    A Chinese developer is planning a 95-story condominium tower for the Jersey City, New Jersey, waterfront that would be the tallest building in the state. China Overseas America Inc. plans to construct the 950-foot (290-meter) building at 99 Hudson St., according to a statement on Tuesday from Mayor Steven Fulop. The skyscraper, with 760 for-sale dwellings, would surpass the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. tower two blocks to the south, which is 781 feet tall, according to the statement. Mr. Levitt may be contacted at dlevitt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Dopp may be contacted at tdopp@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Levitt and Terrence Dopp, Bloomberg

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

    November 03, 2016 —
    It’s official: the October 20, 2016 deadline to petition for certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals on its decision in Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc. v. Bradbury has passed, so it appears that decision will stand. In Sierra Pacific, the Court of Appeals held as a matter of first impression that the statute of repose for a general contractor to sue a subcontractor begins to run when a subcontractor’s scope of work is substantially complete, regardless of the status of the overall project. Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc. v. Bradbury, 2016 COA 132, ¶ 28, ___ P.3d ___. The Court of Appeals interpreted the statute of repose in C.R.S. section 13-80-104, which requires that “all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of any improvement to real property” must be brought within six years of substantial completion of that improvement. C.R.S. § 13-80-104(1)(a). Recognizing that “an improvement may be [to] a discrete component of an entire project” under Shaw Construction, LLC v. United Builder Services, Inc., 296 P.3d 145 (Colo. App. 2012), the Court of Appeals determined that “a subcontractor has substantially completed its role in the improvement at issue when it finishes working on the improvement.” Sierra Pac., 2016 COA at ¶¶ 20, 28. In doing so, it rejected Sierra Pacific’s argument that the statute could be tolled under the repair doctrine “while others worked to repair [the subcontractor’s] ‘improper installation work and flawed repair work.’” Id. at ¶ 29. Because six years had undisputedly passed since the subcontractor completed its scope of work when Sierra Pacific filed suit against it, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting the subcontractor’s motion for summary judgment under Section 13-80-104(1)(a). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
    Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

    China Construction Bank Sued in US Over Reinsurance Fraud Losses

    June 21, 2024 —
    China Construction Bank Corp., the nation’s third-largest commercial lender, was accused in a US lawsuit of enabling a massive fraud in the reinsurance industry that left companies with “monumental losses” and sinking stock prices. The bank allowed employees to conspire with Israeli insurance startup Vesttoo Ltd. to sell reinsurance policies that weren’t real, according to a complaint filed late Thursday by the Porch Group in Manhattan federal court. Vesttoo filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August after it was accused of using some $2 billion of fraudulent letters of credit. The Porch Group said that its unit Homeowners of America Insurance Co. lost tens of millions of dollars when its purported $300 million letter of credit proved worthless. “Not only did HOA incur colossal losses, but news of its exposure to the fraud perpetrated by Vesttoo and CCB shocked the market and imposed severe losses on Porch Group’s shareholders as its stock price plummeted,” according to the suit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Burnson, Bloomberg

    Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative

    September 07, 2017 —
    Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of retroactive application of a construction subcontract on the basis of a merger clause in Don Facciobene, Inc. v. Hough Roofing, Inc.[1] In the case, in late 2010, Don Facciobene, Inc. (“DFI”), a licensed general contractor, contracted with Digiacinto Holdings, LLC, an owner of a home built in 1905 in Melbourne, Florida, known as the Nannie Lee House or the Strawberry Mansion, to perform various renovations in preparation for a restaurant to be opened on the premises. One of the renovations included a new roof. DFI subcontracted the roofing work to Hough Roofing, Inc. (“HRI”), a licensed roofing subcontractor. In mid-March 2011, HRI submitted an estimate and proposed statement of work to DFI. DFI’s project manager signed HRI’s proposal on April 5, 2011, as well as an additional expanded proposal six days later. According to the proposals, payment was due on completion. HRI began work on the roof on April 15, 2011, without a signed subcontract. However, DFI and HRI ultimately executed a subcontract on June 8, 2011, even though HRI had mostly finished its work by the end of May. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sanjo S. Shatley, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Shatley may be contacted at sanjo.shatley@csklegal.com