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


    Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

    "Decay" Found Ambiguous in Collapse Case

    Kahana & Feld P.C. Enhances Client Offerings, Expands Litigation Firm Leadership

    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower

    Professional Malpractice Statute of Limitations in Construction Context

    Ensuing Loss Provision Salvages Coverage for Water Damage Claim

    Karen Campbell, Kristen Perkins to Speak at CLM 2020 Annual Conference in Dallas

    OSHA Advisory Committee, Assemble!

    Wildfire Is Efficient Proximate Cause of Moisture Reaching Expansive Soils Under Residence

    Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    Blackouts Require a New Look at Backup Power

    Parties to an Agreement to Arbitrate May be Compelled to Arbitrate with Non-Parties

    The Big Three: The 9th Circuit Joins The 6th Circuit and 7th Circuit in Holding That Sanctions For Bad-Faith Litigation Tactics Can Only Be Awarded Against Individual Lawyers and Not Law Firms

    Appreciate The Risks You Are Assuming In Your Contract

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold

    Res Judicata Bars Insured from Challenging Insurer's Use of Schedule to Deduct Depreciation from the Loss

    Will AI Completely Transform Our Use of Computers?

    Property Damage Caused By Construction Next Door Covered as Ensuing Loss

    NIBS Consultative Council Issues Moving Forward Report on Healthy Buildings

    Lessee Deemed Statutory Employer, Immune from Tort Liability by Pennsylvania Court

    Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado

    Is Safety Compliance Putting Your Project in Jeopardy? Examining the Essentials of DOE’s Worker Safety and Health Program

    Picketing Threats

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    Material Prices Climb…And Climb…Are You Considering A Material Escalation Provision?

    A Funny Thing Happened to My Ground Lease in Bankruptcy Court

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    Creeping Incrementalism in Downstream Insurance: Carriers are Stretching Standard CGL Concepts to Untenable Limits

    Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects

    Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact

    More Fun with Indemnity and Construction Contracts!

    NY Gov. Sets Industry Advisory Council to Fix Public Contracts Process

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

    Multisensory Marvel: Exploring the Innovative MSG Sphere

    Policy Sublimit Does Not Apply to Business Interruption Loss

    Home Buyer May Be Third Party Beneficiary of Property Policy

    Third Circuit Affirms Use of Eminent Domain by Natural Gas Pipeline

    VinFast Breaks Ground in North Carolina on its Promised $4B EV Plant

    Dallas Home Being Built of Shipping Containers

    Builder Survey Focuses on Green Practices of Top 200 Builders

    NY Attorney General to Propose Bill Requiring Climate Adaptation for Utilities

    Home Prices on the Rise

    The Importance of Preliminary Notices on Private Works Projects

    Express Warranty Trumping Spearin’s Implied Warranty

    ICYMI: Highlights From ABC Convention 2024

    Even Fraud in the Inducement is Tough in Construction

    “Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

    Hunton Insurance Team Wins Summary Judgment on Firm’s Own Hurricane Harvey Business Income Loss

    Sewage Flowing in London’s River Thames Draws Green Bond Demand
    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

    Overtime! – When the Statute of Limitations Isn’t Game Over For Your Claim

    August 07, 2022 —
    Statutes of limitations establish the period of time within which a claimant must bring an action after it accrues. An action can be filing a lawsuit and, in some instances, filing a demand for arbitration. But a multi-year construction project could be longer than the applicable statute of limitations. For example, under Delaware or North Carolina law, the statute of limitations for a breach of contract is only three years.1 So a claim for breach of a construction contract that occurred (i.e. accrued) at the beginning of a four-year project under Delaware or North Carolina law may expire before the project is completed. Generally, a claim accrues at the time of the breach (however, it is important to note that this is not always the case and claim accrual could be the subject of an entirely different article). During the course of a multi-year construction project, proposed change orders or claims for additional compensation can sit, unanswered or unpursued, for months. Or, the parties may informally agree as part of regular project communications to put off dealing with a claim head-on until the end of the project. On certain projects, slow-walking a claim is understandable, as a contractor may be hesitant to sue an owner in the middle of a multi-year project and risk upsetting an otherwise good working relationship. But a delay in formally asserting a put-off claim after it accrues could result in the claim falling subject to a statute of limitations defense. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bradley E. Sands, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Mr. Sands may be contacted at bsands@joneswalker.com

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    November 07, 2012 —
    Available both in print and online, the International Risk Management Institute, Inc has brought out a third edition of Insurance for Defective Construction. The work is written by Patrick J. Wielinski of Cokinos, Bosien & Young, a Dallas-Fort Worth law firm. Mr. Wielinski practice focuses on insurance coverage. Insurance for Defective Construction is described as “a must read for anyone who buys, sell, or underwrites construction insurance or who becomes involved in construction claims.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Cliffhanger: $451M Upgrade for Treacherous Stretch of Highway 1 in British Columbia

    July 31, 2023 —
    Rugged Construction | Part Three of an ENR Series Winding along the edges of steep slopes deep in the eastern forests of British Columbia, a stretch of Highway 1 offers stunning vistas for commuters and visitors as they traverse Kicking Horse Canyon. But the 70-plus-year-old two-lane highway also has been susceptible to rockfalls, avalanches and traffic accidents involving both humans and wildlife. Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Liability Insurer’s Duty To Defend Insured Is Broader Than Its Duty To Indemnify

    June 03, 2019 —
    When it comes to liability insurance, an insurer’s duty to defend its insured from a third-party claim is much broader than its duty to indemnify. This broad duty to defend an insured is very important and, as an insured, you need to know this. “A liability insurer’s obligation, with respect to its duty to defend, is not determined by the insured’s actual liability but rather by whether the alleged basis of the action against the insurer falls within the policy’s coverage.” Advanced Systems, Inc. v. Gotham Ins. Co., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D996b (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (internal quotation omitted). This means: Even where the complaint alleges facts partially within and partially outside the coverage of a policy, the insurer is nonetheless obligated to defend the entire suit, even if the facts later demonstrate that no coverage actually exists. And, the insurer must defend even if the allegations in the complaint are factually incorrect or meritless. As such, an insurer is obligated to defend a claim even if it is uncertain whether coverage exists under the policy. Furthermore, once a court finds that there is a duty to defend, the duty will continue even though it is ultimately determined that the alleged cause of action is groundless and no liability is found within the policy provisions defining coverage. Advanced Systems, supra(internal citations and quotations omitted). 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

    Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”

    October 14, 2013 —
    Walls black with mold. Grass growing on carpets. The board chair of the Penhorwood condos, Christine Burton, describes the photos as “a pretty shocking sight.” The residents were all evicted in 2011 and given only fifteen minutes to gather what possessions they could after the buildings were found to be structurally unsound. An attempt was made to stabilize the buildings, but they kept shifting and cracking, exposing the interiors to the elements. The owners of the Fort McMurray condominium complex are suing the developer, contractor, and others for $60 million. Fort McMurray has ordered that the buildings be torn down, although the condo owners don’t have the funds for this. Even the funds for continuing the lawsuit are hard to come by. Ms. Burton notes “because of the evacuation and the cost of stabilizing the building so that we could go in and get people’s furniture and personal effect out has pretty much depleted our funds.” The owners “have no more money.” The condo owners are hoping that they can sell the land where their former homes are in order to recoup some of their losses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract

    February 14, 2013 —
    The California Court of Appeals tossed out a breach of contract award in Altman v. John Mourier Construction. The decision, which was issued on January 10, 2013, sent the construction defect case back to a lower court to calculate damages based on the conclusions of the appeals court. The case involved both design issues and construction issues. According to the plaintiffs’ expert, the design plans did not make the buildings sufficiently stiff to resist the wind, and that the framing was improperly constructed, further weakening the structures, and leading to the stucco cracking. Additionally, it was alleged that the roofs were improperly installed, leading to water intrusion. The contractor’s expert “agreed the roofs needed repair, but disputed what needed to be done to repair the roofs and the cost.” The jury rejected the plaintiffs’ claims of product liability and breach of warranty, but found in their favor on the claims of breach of contract and negligence. The plaintiffs were awarded differing amounts based on the jury’s conclusions about their particular properties. Both sides sought new trials. JMC, the contractor, claimed that the jury’s verdicts were “inconsistent in that the relieved JMC of liability for strict products liability and breach of warranty, but found JMC liable for breach of contract and negligence.” The plaintiffs “opposed the setoff motion on the ground that the jury heard evidence only of damages not covered by the settlements.” Both motions were denied. After this, the plaintiffs sought and received investigative costs as damages. JMC appealed this amended judgment. The appeals court rejected JMC’s claims that evidence was improperly excluded. JMC sought to introduce evidence concerning errors made by the stucco subcontractor. Earlier in the trial, JMC had insisted that the plaintiffs not be allowed to present evidence concerning the stucco, as that had been separately settled. When they wished to introduce it themselves, they noted that the settlement only precluded the plaintiffs from introducing stucco evidence, but the trial court did not find this persuasive, and the appeals court upheld the actions of the trial court. Nor did the appeals court find grounds for reversal based on claims that the jury saw excluded evidence, as JMC did not establish that the evidence went into the jury room. Further, this did not reach, according to the court, a “miscarriage of justice.” The court rejected two more of JMC’s arguments, concluding that the negligence award did not violate the economic loss rule. The court also noted that JMC failed to prove its contention that the plaintiffs were awarded damages for items that were covered in settlements with the subcontractors. The appeals court did accept JMC’s argument that the award for breach of contract was not supported by evidence. As the ruling notes, “plaintiffs did not submit the contracts into evidence or justify their absence; nor did plaintiffs provide any evidence regarding contract terms allegedly breached.” The court also did not allow the plaintiffs to claim the full amount of the investigative costs. Noting that the trial court had rational grounds for its decision, the appeals court noted that “the jury rejected most of the damages claimed by plaintiffs, and the trial court found that more than $86,000 of the costs itemized in plaintiffs’ invoices ‘appear questionable’ as ‘investigation’ costs/damages and appeared to the trial court to be litigation costs nonrecoverable under section 1033.5.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Taking the Stairs to Human Wellness and Greener Buildings

    June 22, 2016 —
    If taking the stairs catches on, buildings with elevators could automatically get greener. The people working in them also stand a good chance of getting healthier. However, designers and builders working for owners who want to reap these advantages, will need to learn a few new tricks when it comes to how stairs get placed and promoted. They also get a chance to unleash creativity in how they are finished. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rob Finch, Construction Informer Blog

    Wilke Fleury ranked in Best Lawyers’ Best Law Firms!!

    December 03, 2024 —
    Wilke Fleury is pleased to announce its inclusion in the 2025 edition of ‘Best Law Firms’ ranked by Best Lawyers! Firms included in the 2025 “Best Law Firms” list are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP