BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco 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


    Recovering Attorney’s Fees and Treble Damages in Washington DC Condominium Construction Defect Cases

    Construction Contract’s Scope of Work Should Be Written With Clarity

    Condo Board Goes after Insurer for Construction Defect Settlement

    Triple Points to the English Court of Appeal for Clarifying the Law on LDs

    Affirmed

    The Godfather of Solar Predicts Its Future

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    Report Highlights Trends in Construction Tech, Digitization, and AI

    Endorsements Preclude Coverage for Alleged Faulty Workmanship

    Building Resiliency: Withstanding Wildfires and Other Natural Disasters

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    July 1, 2015 Statutory Changes Affecting Virginia Contractors and Subcontractors

    Termination of Construction Contracts

    Commercial Development Nearly Quadruples in Jacksonville Area

    Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”

    Insurer Cannot Abandon Defense Agreement on Underlying Asbestos Claims Against Insured

    U.S. Supreme Court Weighs in on Construction Case

    Crowdfunding Comes to Manhattan’s World Trade Center

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

    BWB&O’s Los Angeles Partner Eileen Gaisford and Associate Kelsey Kohnen Win a Motion for Terminating Sanctions!

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds that Subrogation Waiver Does Not Violate Statute Prohibiting Limitation on Tort Liability in Construction Contracts

    No One to Go After for Construction Defects at Animal Shelter

    Hammer & Hand’s Top Ten Predictions for US High Performance Building in 2014

    Contractor Beware: Design-Build Firms Must Review Washington’s Licensing Requirements

    CCPA Class Action Lawsuits Are Coming. Are You Ready?

    Former Owner Not Liable for Defects Discovered After Sale

    When Every Drop Matters, Cities Turn to Watertech

    Contractors: Consult Your Insurance Broker Regarding Your CGL Policy

    See the Stories That Drew the Most Readers to ENR.com in 2023

    The Architecture of Tomorrow Mimics Nature to Cool the Planet

    Data Is Critical for the Future of Construction

    The Hazards of Carrier-Specific Manuscript Language: Ohio Casualty's Off-Premises Property Damage and Contractors' E&O Endorsements

    CSLB Joint Venture Licenses – Providing Contractors With The Means To Expand Their Businesses

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 45 White and Williams Lawyers

    Seattle Condos, Close to Waterfront, Construction Defects Included

    U.K. to Set Out Plan for Fire-Risk Apartment Cladding Crisis

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    Reasons to Be Skeptical About a Millennial Homebuying Boom in 2016

    A Lawyer's Perspective on Current Issues Dominating the Construction Industry

    Construction Costs Up

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

    Solicitor General’s Views to Supreme Court on Two Circuit Court Rulings that Groundwater Can be Considered “Waters of the United States”

    Employee Exclusion Bars Coverage for Wrongful Death of Subcontractor's Employee

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    4 Ways to Mitigate Construction Disputes

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Department of Transportation Revises Its Rules Affecting Environmental Review of Transportation Projects

    Homebuilders Are Fighting Green Building. Homeowners Will Pay.

    Delaware Strengthens Jurisdictional Defenses for Foreign Corporations Registered to Do Business in Delaware

    Turkey to Start Building 200,000 Homes in March, Erdogan Says
    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

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

    April 05, 2021 —
    New York is considering legislation, which, if enacted, would create a statute of repose limiting the number of years after completion of a construction project that legal action may be asserted against a contractor. New York currently remains the only state without a statute of repose for construction. Earlier this year, however, the New York State Legislature introduced Bills S04127 and A01706 (the “Bill”) , which would impose a 10-year period of repose in which an injured party may bring suit against a design professional and/or a contractor for bodily injury or property damage resulting from a construction defect. Currently, contractors and design professionals have exposure to bodily injury and property damage claims resulting from construction defects for an unlimited number of years after completion of a project. If enacted, the Bill would limit the period of repose to 10 years after the project is completed, which is deemed to occur upon substantial completion or acceptance by the owner. An additional 1-year grace period is provided for an injured party to file suit where bodily injury or property damage occurs in the tenth year after completion. The Bill notably limits the applicability of the 10-year statute of repose to third-party actions and thereby preserves the existing 3-year and 6-year statutes of limitation applicable to actions asserted by an owner or client for professional malpractice and breach of contract, respectively. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    May 26, 2011 —

    A three-judge panel issued a per curium ruling on May 23 in Fairview Heights Condo. v. Investors (N.J. Super., 2011), a case which the members of a condominium board argued: “that the judge erred by: 1) dismissing plaintiff’s claims against RLI based upon the statute of repose; 2) dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Luppinos based upon a lack of expert opinion; 3) barring the testimony of Gonzalez; and 4) barring the May 23, 1989 job site report.” The court rejected all claims from the condominium board.

    The court found that the building must be unsafe for the statute of repose to apply. They noted, “the judge made no findings on whether the water seepage, or the property damage caused by such seepage, in any way rendered the building, or any of the units, unsafe.” Further, “without a specific finding on the question of whether the defects had rendered the building ‘unsafe,’ defendants were not entitled to the benefit of the ten-year statute of repose.“

    On the second point, the court also upheld the lower court’s findings regarding the management company:

    “The report submitted by Berman establishes that the EIFS product was defective in its design and would therefore have failed from the outset. The defects in that product were, according to Berman, not prone to repair or other mitigation. Therefore, even if defendants did not appropriately inspect or repair the EIFS, their failure to do so would have had no impact on the long-term performance of the EIFS exterior cladding. As plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on these questions, the judge properly granted summary judgment to the Luppinos on plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.”

    On the final two points, the judges noted “plaintiff maintains that the judge committed reversible error when he excluded the Gonzalez certification and the 1989 job site report prepared by Raymond Brzuchalski.” They saw “no abuse of discretion related to the exclusion of the Gonzalez certification, and reject plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary.” Of the job site report, they found, “no abuse of discretion in the judge's finding that the Brzuchalski 1989 job site report did not satisfy the requirements of N.J.R.E.803(c)(6).”

    Read the court’s decision

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

    Partners Patti Santelle and Gale White honored by as "Top Women in Law" The Legal Intelligencer

    September 22, 2016 —
    Managing Partner Patti Santelle and Partner Gale White were among the 25 women recognized by The Legal Intelligencer as "Top Women In Law" for 2016. The honor shines a light on the outstanding work being done by female attorneys across Pennsylvania who are making strides to push the legal profession forward for women. Honorees were selected by The Legal, with the help of suggestions from the legal community. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    November 30, 2016 —
    A quick drive through almost any newer residential community in the Southwest will show that a lot of residents are embracing “Green Energy” or renewable energy by placing solar panels on their properties. While most people would agree that increasing the use of alternative energy is socially responsible, there are a number of real estate investors that may view it as an opportunity to make additional profits by purchasing distressed properties with solar panels and then reselling those properties for more than they would be worth without solar panels. The theory is relatively straight forward as many believe that foreclosure of a deed of trust that was recorded before the solar panels were installed would extinguish any liens in favor of the vendor that sold or financed the sale of the solar panels. After all, it is generally held that “a valid foreclosure of a mortgage terminates all interest in the foreclosed real estate that are junior to the mortgage being foreclosed.” See SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 75, 334 P.3d 408, 412 (2014) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Property, Mortgages §7.1 (1997)). NOT SO FAST! While the general rule is that foreclosure of a senior lien terminates junior liens, most purveyors of solar panels do not encumber the property with mortgages or deeds of trust to secure payment of amounts they are owed. Rather, they typically either lease the solar panels to the property owner or secure repayment of the purchase price of the solar panels with a fixture filing under the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bob L. Olson, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Olson may be contacted at bolson@swlaw.com

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    June 10, 2011 —

    In Goodville Mut. Cas. Co. v. Baldo, No. 09-338 (D. Del. June 2, 2011), claimants condominium association and unit owners sued project developer Rehoboth and general contractor Capano seeking damages because of moisture penetration property damage to common elements and individual units resulting from construction defects. Rehoboth and Capano filed a third party complaint against insured property manager Baldo alleging that, if Rehoboth and Capano were liable to claimants, Baldo was also liable because of Baldo’s failure to properly manage, maintain, and repair the property

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

    General Contractor Intervening to Compel Arbitration Per the Subcontract

    December 06, 2021 —
    It is not uncommon that a general contractor’s subcontract will include an arbitration provision. Or it will allow the general contractor to select binding arbitration as the method to resolve disputes at the general contractor’s SOLE OPTION. A general contractor’s subcontract should absolutely give the general contractor this important right. (Keep this in mind when drafting dispute resolution provisions for a general contractor.) It is also not uncommon for a subcontractor the sue a general contractor’s payment bond surety, and NOT the general contractor. One reason to do this is to create an argument to avoid the dispute resolution provision in the subcontract. (Another reason is to avoid any pay-if-paid defense.) When this occurs, a general contractor may still want to arbitrate the subcontractor’s payment bond dispute and a way to do so is for the general intervene in the lawsuit and move to compel arbitration. Sometimes, it is even practical for the general contractor to immediately initiate the arbitration process against the subcontractor, particularly if the general contractor wants to assert a counterclaim, so that the motion to compel is supported by the formal demand for arbitration (and filed with the American Arbitration Association or other body administering the arbitration). I have done this on a number of occasions. 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

    California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

    June 15, 2020 —
    In another round of litigation involving coverage issues between Montrose Chemical Corporation and its insurers, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Montrose, adopting vertical exhaustion of excess policies. Montrose Chem. Corp. of Calif. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 9 Ca. 5th 215 (2020). In 1990, the United States and the State of California sued Montrose for contamination from 1947 to 1982 caused by Montrose's facility manufacturing insecticides. Montrose had primary and excess liability policies from defendant insurers between 1961 and 1985. Forty insurers collectively issued more than 115 excess policies, which collectively provided coverage sufficient to indemnify Montrose's anticipate total liability. Primary coverage was exhausted. Each excess policy provided that Montrose had to exhaust the limits of its underlying coverage before there would be excess coverage. Which excess carrier could be called on first was the issued before the California Supreme Court. Montrose proposed a rule of "vertical exhaustion" or "elective stacking," whereby it could access any excess policy once it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points in the same policy period. The insurers, in contract, argued for "horizontal exhaustion," whereby Montrose could access an excess policy only after it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. 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

    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