BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Cooperation and Collaboration With Government May Be on the Horizon

    Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied

    Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

    Construction Lien Waiver Provisions Contractors Should Be Using

    Third Circuit Court of Appeals Concludes “Soup to Nuts” Policy Does Not Include Faulty Workmanship Coverage

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Duty to Defend When Case Law is Uncertain

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract is Only as Good as Those Signing It

    Contractor Changes Contract After Signed, Then Sues Older Woman for Breaking It

    Before Celebrating the Market Rebound, Builders Need to Read the Fine Print: New Changes in Construction Law Coming Out of the Recession

    Smart Construction and the Future of the Construction Industry

    Homebuilder Predictions for Tallahassee

    Electronic Signatures On Contracts: Are They Truly Compliant?

    Meet Some Key Players in 2020 Environmental Litigation

    NIST Florida Condo Collapse Probe Develops Dozens of Hypotheses

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    Safety, Compliance and Productivity on the Jobsite

    Aecmaster’s Digital Twin: A New Era for Building Design

    Owners and Contractors are Liable for Injuries Caused by their Independent Contractors under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine”

    Who Would Face Liability For Oroville Dam Management: Brett Moore Authors Law360 Article

    Compliance Doesn’t Pay: Compliance Evidence Inadmissible in Strict Liability Actions

    Details of Sealed Whistleblower Charges Over Cuomo Bridge Bolts Burst Into Public View

    Cross-Office Team Secures Defense Verdict in Favor of Client in Asbestos Case

    Washington Court Denies Subcontractor’s Claim Based on Contractual Change and Notice Provisions

    “Bound by the Bond”

    Billionaire Behind Victoria’s Secret Built His Version of the American Heartland

    Staffing Company Not Entitled to Make a Claim Against a Payment Bond and Attorneys’ Fees on State Public Works Payment Bonds

    Anthony Garasi, Jared Christensen and August Hotchkin are Recognized as Nevada Legal Elite

    More Clear, But Not Yet Crystal: Virginia Amends its Prompt Payment Law and Legislation Banning “Pay-If-Paid Clauses in Construction Contracts Effective July 1, 2023

    Recent Federal Court Decision Favors Class Action Defendants

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (3/6/24) – Steep Drop in Commercial Real Estate Investment, Autonomous Robots Being Developed for Construction Projects, and Treasury Department Proposes Regulation for Real Estate Professionals

    Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project

    Seattle’s Newest Residential Developer

    Additional Insured Secures Defense Under Subcontractor's Policy

    Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    U.S. Firm Helps Thais to Pump Water From Cave to Save Boys

    Millennials Want Houses, Just Like Everybody Else

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    Changes to the Federal Rules – 2024

    Apartment Projects Fuel 13% Jump in U.S. Housing Starts

    2016 Updates to CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Retail Leasing Practice Books Now Available

    Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

    Fed. Judge Blocks Release of Records on FIU Bridge Collapse, Citing NTSB Investigation

    When Business is Personal: Negligent and Intentional Interference Claims

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    First Circuit Limits Insurers’ Right to Recoup Defense Costs or Settlement Payments

    Savannah Homeowners Win Sizable Judgment in Mold Case against HVAC Contractor

    Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 Not Just for Individual Homeowners Anymore?
    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

    Holding the Bag for Pre-Tender Defense Costs

    February 02, 2017 —
    For a variety of reasons, additional insureds (and even named insureds) under commercial general liability policies will sometimes wait months, and even years, to tender the defense of a claim or lawsuit, incurring significant legal fees in the interim. When the claim finally is tendered, a dispute often arises over who should pay the pre-tender defense costs. Surprisingly, there is very little Florida legal authority specifically dealing with this issue. However, the recent federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals case of EmbroidMe.com, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America, No. 14-10616, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 368 (11th Cir. Jan. 9, 2017), applying Florida law, addresses the issue head-on and provides CGL carriers with a large hammer in refusing to pay pre-tender fees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John J. Kozak, Esq., Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Kozak may be contacted at john.kozak@csklegal.com

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    January 27, 2014 —
    The EPA recently amended the “’All Appropriate Inquiries Rule’ concerning environmental site assessments of potentially contaminated sites,” reports the Schinnerer Risk Management Blog. Engineers will need to be aware that “Phase I assessments should now reference ASTM International’s E1527-13 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process” in order to comply with the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    September 30, 2011 —

    The Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled in Creswell v. Estate of Howe, a case in which a woman bought a home and then sued the seller’s estate, both sets of real estate agents, and the homeowner’s association over construction defects. A district court ruled against her, granting summary judgment to the other parties.

    After buying a townhome “as is,” Catherine Creswell claims to have shared a thought with her agent that the homeowners association was, in the words of her agent, “trying to hide something.” Later, Creswell found that a few days before her closing, the board had discussed problems with “roofs, siding and soundproofing of the townhomes.” The court noted that “it was clear from the documents that appellant [Creswell] received that the association had known about various construction defects for many years, some of which affected [her] unit.”

    Creswell initially sued the estate, the man who negotiated the sale for his mother’s estate, the real estate companies and the agents involved, the homeowners association, and four board members. Later she sued for punitive damages, dropped a claim for interference with contractual relations, and dismissed her claims against the individual board members. The court dismissed all of Creswell’s claims awarding costs to those she sued.

    The appeals court has affirmed the decision of lower court, noting that Creswell “did not provide us with any argument why the district court erred in dismissing her unjust-enrichment, breach of contract, or rescission claims against the various respondents.” Nor did she provide evidence to support her claims of “breach of duty, fraud, and violation of consumer protection statutes.”

    The court noted that Creswell could not sue the homeowners association over the construction defects because she “failed to prove that she was damaged by the association’s nondisclosure.” The court noted that “there are no damages in this case,” as Creswell “was never assessed for any repairs, she had not paid anything out-of-pocket for repairs, and she has presented no evidence that the value of her individual unit has declined because of the alleged undisclosed construction defects.”

    The court granted the other parties motion to dismiss and denied Creswell’s motion to supplement the record. Costs were awarded to the respondents.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Gibbs Giden is Pleased to Announce Four New Partners and Two New Associates

    January 08, 2024 —
    We take great pleasure in announcing that Richard Marks and Kyle Marks have joined the firm. They bring a combined 60 years of real property law experience to Gibbs Giden. Well known Title Insurance and seasoned real estate attorneys they have both served as chair of the Title Insurance Subsection of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and are adjunct professors at Southwestern University School of Law. We are excited to welcome these two exceptional partners and their commitment to representing clients with honesty, integrity, and excellence. You can find them in our firm’s Westlake office. Talented attorneys Samantha Riggen and Christopher Trembley have been named partners. Samantha represents clients in all areas of business and commercial matters with an emphasis on construction litigation on both public and private projects. Christopher’s practice also focuses on construction litigation on behalf of a wide spectrum of industry-stakeholder clients, including suppliers, contractors, and owners. Both work in our firm’s Westlake Village office. We are also pleased to announce we’ve hired two new associates. Sarah La Mendola and Madison Wedderspoon. Sarah has developed an expertise in a wide range of real estate, business, and corporate matters. She received her JD from the University of Pavia, one of the top universities in Italy, in 2012 and her LLM from UCLA in 2015. You can find Sarah in our Westlake Village office. Madison recently graduated from the Boyd School of Law cum laude, is based in our Las Vegas office and works in the areas of business law, contracts, healthcare law, construction, real estate, and common interest community transactional and litigation work. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gibbs Giden

    Is the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative Act

    January 10, 2018 —
    Arizona’s Constitution gives electors in cities, towns, and counties the ability to refer legislation that was enacted by their local elected officials to the ballot for popular vote. Ariz. Const. art. IV, Pt. 1 § 1(8). But only legislative acts are referable; administrative acts are not. In general, a legislative act makes new law and creates policy, is permanent in nature, and is generally applied. On the other hand, an administrative act is one that executes and implements a law already in place. Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa, 169 Ariz. 485, 489-90, 821 P.2d 146, 150-51 (1991). For more than fifty years, Arizona courts have been clear: zoning and rezoning ordinances are legislative acts and therefore referable to popular vote. City of Phoenix v. Fehlner, 90 Ariz. 13, 17, 363 P.2d 607, 609 (1961) (holding that “what constitutes an appropriate zone is primarily for the legislature”); Fritz v. City of Kingman, 191 Ariz 432, 432, 957 P.2d 337, 337 (1998) (noting “we reaffirm our view that zoning decisions are legislative matters subject to referendum”); Pioneer Trust Co. of Arizona v. Pima Cty., 168 Ariz. 61, 64–65, 811 P.2d 22, 25–26 (1991) (holding “that, in Arizona, zoning decisions are legislative acts subject to referendum” and that even a “conditional approval of . . . rezoning was a legislative act”); Cottonwood Dev. v. Foothills Area Coal. of Tucson, Inc., 134 Ariz. 46, 653 P.2d 694 (1982) (analyzing whether zoning referendum complied with statutory requirements); Wait v. City of Scottsdale, 127 Ariz. 107, 108, 618 P.2d 601, 602 (1980) (noting “that the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances constitute legislative action”); City of Phoenix v. Oglesby, 112 Ariz. 64, 65, 537 P.2d 934, 935 (1975) (“The matter of zoning is appropriately one for the legislative branch of government.”); Queen Creek Land & Cattle Corp. v. Yavapai Cty. Bd. of Sup’rs, 108 Ariz. 449, 452, 501 P.2d 391, 394 (1972) (denying an attempt to enjoin referendum on county’s zoning decision). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Adam E. Lang, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Lang may be contacted at alang@swlaw.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

    Court of Appeal Shines Light on Collusive Settlement Agreements

    October 21, 2015 —
    In Diamond v. Reshko, (filed 8/20/2015, No. A139251) the California Court of Appeal, First District, held that a defendant was entitled to introduce evidence at trial reflecting amounts paid by co-defendants in settlement of a plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff, Christine Diamond, was injured during an automobile accident that occurred while she was a passenger in a taxi driven by Amir Mansouri. Christine, and her husband Andrew, filed suit against Mr. Mansouri, the Yellow Cab Collective (“Yellow Cab”), and the driver of the vehicle that collided with the taxi, Serge Reshko. Before trial, Mansouri and the Yellow Cab Collective settled with Plaintiffs, but agreed to appear and participate as defendants at the jury trial of the action. Mansouri and Yellow Cab paid a total of $400,000 to Plaintiffs in settlement. Reshko filed a pre-trial motion seeking an order permitting Reshko to admit evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs and the other defendants. The trial court refused to rule on the motion before trial. Ultimately, evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs, Mansouri and Yellow Cab was excluded during trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs in the total amount of $745,778, finding Mansouri 40 percent at fault, and Reshko 60 percent at fault. The Trial Court entered judgment against Reshko in the sum of $406,698. Reshko appealed the judgment. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that evidence of the settlement should have been admitted at trial because the settling defendant’s position should be revealed to the court and jury to avoid committing a fraud on the court, and in order to permit the trier of fact to properly weigh the settling defendant’s testimony. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Risky Business: Contractual Protections in the 'New Normal'

    January 04, 2023 —
    The point of contracts is to create certainty to avoid litigated or arbitrated disputes. Still, the various parties in the construction process may have different risk tolerances. For example, general contractors are often characterized as “risk-tolerant.” That risk, though, is usually calculated by the contractor internally, outside the terms of the written contract, based on an assumption that the contractor can get the work done more cheaply and more quickly than the owner anticipated. Project owners typically want and expect close-to-absolute certitude—absolutely as to cost—in their construction contracts. The standard fixed-price or lump-sum construction contract is geared toward protecting that interest. Post-COVID-19, however, the discussion in the industry suggests that all bets are off when pricing and agreeing to construction work. Labor and materials shortages have sent owners and their design consultants backpedaling when general contractors pursuing a fixed-price contract seek contractual concessions that “un-fix” the price. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III , Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of