BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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


    Were Quake Standards Illegally Altered for PG&E Nuclear Power Plant?

    Toll Plans to Boost New York Sales With Pricing, Incentives

    N.J. Governor Signs Bill Expanding P3s

    Licensing Mistakes That Can Continue to Haunt You

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

    World Green Building Council Calls for Net-Zero Embodied Carbon in Buildings by 2050

    At Long Last, the Colorado Legislature Gets Serious About Construction Defect Reform – In a Constructive Way

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    Occurrence Found, Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Bar Coverage for Construction Defects

    Chattanooga Bridge Collapse Likely Resulted From Impact

    Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost

    Creating a Custom Home Feature in the Great Outdoors

    Tax Increase Pumps $52 Billion Into California Construction

    Super Lawyers Recognized Five Lawyers from Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group

    Supreme Court Set to Alter Law on Key Project, Workforce Issues

    With Wildfires at a Peak, “Firetech” Is Joining Smart City Lineups

    Summary Judgment Granted to Insurer for Hurricane Damage

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Solar Energy Isn’t Always Green

    A Court-Side Seat: A Poultry Defense, a Houston Highway and a CERCLA Consent Decree that Won’t Budge

    No Coverage for Home Damaged by Falling Boulders

    Nondelegable Duty of Care Owed to Third Persons

    Project Delivery Methods: A Bird’s-Eye View

    Megaproject Savings Opportunities

    At Least 46 Killed in Taiwanese Apartment Building Inferno

    Is Equipment Installed as Part of Building Renovations a “Product” or “Construction”?

    Insurer Must Defend Contractor Against Claims of Faulty Workmanship

    Constructing a New American Dream

    Fluor Agrees to $14.5M Fixed-Price Project Cost Pact with SEC

    Providing “Labor” Under the Miller Act

    Housing Markets Continue to Improve

    Phillips & Jordan Awarded $176M Everglades Restoration Contract

    Equitable Subrogation Part Deux: Mechanic’s Lien vs. Later Bank Deed of Trust

    Ahlers & Cressman’s Top 10 Construction Industry Contract Provisions

    How to Cool Down Parks in Hot Cities

    Another Colorado Construction Defect Reform Bill Dies

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

    ASHRAE Approves Groundbreaking Standard to Reduce the Risk of Disease Transmission in Indoor Spaces

    Hurricane Milton Barrels Toward Florida With 180 MPH Winds

    Wall Street Is Buying Starter Homes to Quietly Become America’s Landlord

    New York Considering Legislation That Would Create Statute of Repose For Construction

    Construction Legislation Likely to Take Effect July 1, 2020

    New-Home Sales in U.S. Unexpectedly Fall to Four-Month Low

    West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar Returns to Anaheim May 15th & 16th

    Resulting Loss From Faulty Workmanship Covered

    FEMA, Congress Eye Pre-Disaster Funding, Projects

    Couple Perseveres to Build Green
    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

    Major Change to Residential Landlord Tenant Law

    July 15, 2019 —
    Governor Inslee has just signed SB 5600 which results in major changes to the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RCW 59.18) regarding the eviction process of residential tenants. The changes do not apply to non-residential tenancies which are still governed by RCW 59.12. The new law includes additional protections for tenants and limits the ability of landlords to evict tenants or recover costs for legal proceedings. It also grants judges substantial discretion in eviction hearings whereas judges were previously bound by the express terms of the statute. The major changes to the law are listed below:
    • A landlord must provide a tenant 14 days’ notice instead of three days’ notice in order to cure default in the payment of overdue rent. The Attorney General’s Office will create a uniform 14-day notice to pay and vacate default form.
    • Landlords must first apply any payment by a tenant to the rent amount before applying it towards other charges, including fees or other costs.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence S. Glosser, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Glosser may be contacted at larry.glosser@acslawyers.com

    Manhattan’s Property Boom Pushes Landlords to Sell Early

    August 26, 2015 —
    Manhattan property owners are cashing out ahead of schedule. With New York real estate values and rents surging, owners of commercial properties acquired as recently as a year ago are already seeking buyers. In the case of one Midtown site, the developer scrapped construction plans to sell an empty plot of land. There’s so much buyer demand that in some situations it’s more opportune for landlords to sell rather than follow through on plans for redevelopment or filling buildings with new tenants. A record $29.4 billion of Manhattan property deals were completed in the first half of 2015, according to brokerage Jones Lang LaSalle Inc., part of a five-year real estate rally that’s pushed prices to new highs in big U.S. cities. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah Mulholland, Bloomberg

    Steel Makeover Under Way for Brooklyn's Squibb Footbridge

    January 13, 2020 —
    Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Squibb Bridge has 127 fewer years of existence than the borough’s iconic East River span, but the pedestrian crossing got lots of New York City attention since it was first opened in 2013 after being shut down twice—once for excessive “bounciness” and again due to rotting wood. Now its reconstruction, hopefully for good, is anything but a straightforward operation. Tom Stabile, 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

    Five Issues to Consider in Government Contracting (Or Any Contracting!)

    September 02, 2024 —
    The appeal of Appeals of – Konecranes Nuclear Equipment & Services, LLC, ASBCA 62797, 2024 WL 2698011 (May 7, 2024) raises interesting, but important, issues that should be considered. In this case, the government (in a supply contract) procured four portal cranes from the claimant. After an initial test of one of the cranes failed, the government refused to accept delivery even after the issue was addressed by the claimant. The government did not accept the manner in which the claimant addressed the issue and would only accept cranes if the claimant employed “an unnecessary alternative solution [that] caused further delay and increased [claimant’s] costs.” On appeal, it was determined the government’s decision to delay delivery based on its demand for the alternative solution was not justified, i.e., constituted a breach of contract. Below are five issues of consideration in government contracting, or, for that matter, any contracting. Issue #1- Patently Ambiguous Specifications The government argued that the specifications were patently ambiguous and because the claimant failed to inquire regarding the ambiguous specifications prior to performance, its interpretation of the ambiguous specifications should govern. The contractor countered that the specifications were unambiguous and it met the specifications. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Is the Removal and Replacement of Nonconforming Work Economically Wasteful?

    September 19, 2022 —
    There are times a contractor installs the wrong material or system contrary to the plans and specifications. A nonconformity. The owner wants the already-installed material or system to be replaced in conformity with the plans and specifications. However, what was installed is functionally equivalent to what the plans and specifications required and would be cost prohibitive, i.e., economically wasteful. If the contractor elects to remove and replace the nonconforming work, it may seek a change order because it is economically wasteful. Or, the contractor may refuse (typically, not the best approach) in furtherance of taking on the fight based on the economic wastefulness associated with the removal and replacement. A recent case, David Boland, Inc. v. U.S., 2022 WL 3440349 (Fed.Cl. 2022), talks about this exaction situation and the economic waste doctrine. This is an important doctrine for contractors to understand when faced with a similar predicament. Here, a contractor was hired by the government to construct a wastewater collection system that was to be owned and operated by a private company. The contractor’s work was going to be incorporated into a larger sewer system that the private company already operated. The contractor was required to install sewer manholes reinforced with steel in accordance with an ASTM standard. The manholes could be rejected if they did not conform to the ASTM standard. Compliance with this ASTM standard was also required by the private company’s construction protocol for the infrastructure, which was incorporated into the contractor’s contract with the government. The contractor was required to strictly comply with the contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Governmental Action Exclusion Bars Claim for Damage to Insured's Building

    November 27, 2023 —
    The lower court's decision finding no coverage based upon the governmental action exclusion was affirmed by the Appellate Court of Illinois. McCann Plumbing, Heating & Cooling v. Pekin Ins. Co., 2023 Ill.App. LEXIS 300 (Ill. App. Ct. Aug. 23, 2023). McCann purchased a building to use for its heating, ventilation, and air conditioning business. The building was surrounded by two unihhabited properties which often flooded. The city determined that a building on the adjacent property had to be demolished. In the course of destruction, the McCann's building was damaged, leaving a portion of their building open to the elements. McCann sought coverage from Pekin for damage incurred in the demolition. The policy provided coverage for "direct physical loss of or damage to" the covered property. Pekin denied coverage under the policy's governmental action exclusion, which provided,
    We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the following: . . . c. Governmental Action Seizure or destruction of property by order of governmental authority . . .
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    January 06, 2012 —

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in the case of American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co. Several other insurance companies were party to this case. In the earlier case, the US District Court of Appeals for Arizona had granted a summary judgment to Ohio Casualty Group and National Fire & Marine Insurance Company. At the heart of it, is a dispute over construction defect coverage.

    The general contractor for Astragal Luxury Villas, GFTDC, contracted with American Family to provide it with a commercial liability policy. Coverage was issued to various subcontractors by Ohio Casualty and National Fire. These policies included blanket additional insured endorsements that provided coverage to GFTDC. The subcontractor policies had provisions making their coverage excess over other policies available to GFTDC.

    The need for insurance was triggered when the Astragal Condominium Unit Owners Association filed a construction defect claim in the Arizona Superior Court. CFTDC filed a third-party claim against several subcontractors. The case was settled with American Family paying the settlement, after which it filed seeking reimbursement from the subcontractor’s insurers. The court instead granted summary judgment in favor of Ohio Casualty and National Fire.

    American Family appealed to the Ninth Circuit for a review of the summary judgment, arguing that the “other insurance” clauses were “mutually repugnant and unenforceable.” The Ninth Circuit cited a case from the Arizona Court of Appeals that held that “where two policies cover the same occurrence and both contain ‘other insurance’ clauses, the excess insurance provisions are mutually repugnant and must be disregarded. Each insurer is then liable for a pro rate share of the settlement or judgment.”

    The court noted that unlike other “other insurance” cases, the American Family policy “states that it provides primary CGL coverage for CFTDC and is rendered excess only if there is ‘any other primary insurance’ available to GFTDC as an additional insured.” They note that “the American Family policy purports to convert from primary to excess coverage only if CFTDC has access to other primary insurance as an additional insured.”

    In comparison, the court noted that “the ‘other insurance’ language in Ohio Casualty’s additional insured endorsement cannot reasonably be read to contradict, or otherwise be inconsistent with, the ‘other primary insurance’ provision in the American Family policy.” They find other reasons why National Fire’s coverage did not supersede American Family’s. In this case, the policy is “written explicitly to apply in excess.”

    Finally, the Astragal settlement did not exhaust American Family’s coverage, so they were obligated to pay out the full amount. The court upheld the summary dismissal of American Family’s claims.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    June 28, 2013 —
    The federal district court assumed there was "property damage" caused by an "occurrence," but found the business risk exclusions barred coverage for construction defect claims. Hubbell v. Carney Bros. Constr., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68331 (D. Colo. May 13, 2013). The plaintiffs entered a construction contract with the insured general contractor to build a home. After the project was one-third completed, plaintiffs terminated the contract. Experts hired by plaintiffs found a failure to properly site the residence, as the house was constructed 48 feet from the intended location; violations of county height restrictions; failure to follow building plans, which were themselves deficient; and an improperly poured foundation. The experts estimated that the costs of repairing the property to be between $1.3 and $1.5 million, and that the cost of demolishing the structure and rebuilding it would be between $1.1 and $1.3 million. After plaintiff filed suit, a stipulated judgment of $1.952 million was entered. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com