BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut engineering consultant
    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


    Denver Condo Development Increasing, with Caution

    How To Fix Oroville Dam

    School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

    Maryland Legislation Prohibits Condominium Developers from Shortening Statute of Limitations to Defeat Unit Owner Construction Defect Claims

    Lewis Brisbois Promotes 35 to Partnership

    Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

    Depreciation of Labor in Calculating Actual Cash Value Against Public Policy

    Construction Defect Class Action Lawsuit Alleges National Cover-up of Pipe Defects

    Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Named to Benchmark Litigation’s 2019 40 & Under Hot List

    Hurricane Laura: Implications for Insurers in Louisiana

    WSHB Ranks No.10 in Law360’s Best of Law Firms for Women

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

    Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

    California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Injured Worker Despite Contractor's Exclusion

    SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability

    Monitoring Building Moisture with RFID – Interview with Jarmo Tuppurainen

    Malerie Anderson Named to D Magazine’s 2023 Best Lawyers Under 40

    Hundreds of Coronavirus Coverage Cases Await Determination on Consolidation

    Third Circuit Affirms Use of Eminent Domain by Natural Gas Pipeline

    California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

    Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards

    New Jersey Law regarding Prior Expert’s Testimony

    Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

    Gone Fishing: Tenant’s Insurer Casts A Line Seeking To Subrogate Against The Landlord

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Extreme Heat, Smoke Should Get US Disaster Label, Groups Say

    How the Election Could Affect the Housing Industry: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    Congratulations to Karen Baytosh and August Hotchkin on Their Recognition as 2021 Nevada Legal Elites!

    Mark Van Wonterghem To Serve as Senior Forensic Consultant in the Sacramento Offices of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.

    The Requirement to State a “Sum Certain” No Longer a Jurisdictional Bar to Government Contract Claims

    Court Strikes Expert Opinion That Surety Acted as a “De Facto Contractor”

    Nationwide Immigrant Strike May Trigger Excusable Delay and Other Contract Provisions

    Economic Loss Doctrine Bars Negligence Claim Against Building Company Owner, Individually

    Is Modular Construction Destined to Fail?

    40 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Ed Doernberger

    West Virginia Couple Claim Defects in Manufactured Home

    Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Construction Contract Basics: Indemnity

    COVID-19 Response: Executive Order 13999: Enhancement of COVID-19-Related Workplace Safety Requirements

    Rhode Island Sues 13 Industry Firms Over Flawed Interstate Bridge

    THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL

    Bremer Whyte Sets New Precedent in Palos Verdes Landslide Litigation

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    Court Affirms Summary Adjudication of Bad Faith Claim Where Expert Opinions Raised a Genuine Dispute

    Mortenson Subcontractor Fires Worker Over Meta Data Center Noose

    Drowning of Two Boys Constitutes One Occurrence

    The Most Expensive Travel Construction Flops
    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

    This Is the Most Remote and Magical Hotel on Earth

    May 12, 2016 —
    There are no signs leading to the Fogo Island Inn. That’s how hard it is to miss the place. Designed by architect Todd Saunders, who grew up in nearby Gander, the building takes its inspiration from the fishing shacks that dot the shoreline, sagging on old wooden stilts, but it was also made with the dimensions of a cruising vessel. Three hundred feet long by 30 feet wide. Like a ship that’s just sailed into harbor. For decades, the flow of traffic in this community off the Newfoundland coast had moved in one direction: away. Fewer than 2,500 people live on an island four times the size of Manhattan. But the inn, the brainchild of Fogo Island native and tech millionaire Zita Cobb, reversed that trend when it was completed in 2013. Strangers now come from around the world to see the island, whose unspoiled landscape makes it a coveted spot for the under-the-radar traveler. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah Hepola, Bloomberg

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    September 30, 2011 —

    The Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.

    In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”

    Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.

    The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”

    The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”

    The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Environmental Regulatory Provisions Embedded in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    January 03, 2022 —
    With the enactment of this important legislation, its impact on environmental regulation and policy will be carefully analyzed by the regulated community. Such a review may be hampered by the fact that the law is not only complex but also very long (over 2000 pages!). The Infrastructure Act is mostly an appropriations and authorization law, but it includes many new policy choices. This is a brief review (which can only scratch the surface of this law) of some of the many environmentally related provisions, which are part of this new law and can be located in the pdf version of the law. The law is composed of nine separate divisions, which are further divided into separate titles and subtitles. Division A is entitled “Surface Transportation”; Division B is the “Surface Transportation Investment Act of 2021”; Division C is “Transit”; Division D is “Energy”; Division E is “Drinking Water and Wastewater”; Division F is “Broadband”; Division G is “Other Authorizations”; Division H is “Revenue Provisions”; Division I is “Other Matters”; Division J is “Appropriations”; and Division K is “Minority Business Development.” It is somewhat bewildering on first reading, as befits a law that is expressing the manifold policy decisions made by the Congress. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 2: Coverage for Smoke-Related Damages

    July 03, 2022 —
    For many policyholders, smoke emanating from wildfire causes as much if not more damage than the fire itself. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we discuss damages caused by smoke emanating from wildfires. Some insurers argue that policies are limited to fire damage to the insured property and do not include smoke damage associated with nearby fires. A treatise frequently cited by insurers states otherwise: “The concept that fire insurance covers non-fire damage which is the proximate result of fire finds application also when the fire occurs on other property and causes harm to the insured property. In such case, the harm to the insured property, even though it is a non-fire harm, has long been recognized to be the result of fire, and, therefore, within the policy coverage.”[1] Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Business Interruption, Food Spoilage Claims Resulting from Off Premise Power Failure Denied

    June 02, 2016 —
    The insurer denied the insured restaurant's claim for food spoilage and loss of business income when a flood elsewhere caused a power outage. N. Spy Food Co., LLC v. Tower Nat'l. Ins., 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1033 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. March 22, 2016). Tower denied the claim based on an investigation which revealed that the claims resulted from an off premises power failure. The utility company verified that the cause of the power failure was due to flood, a cause excluded under the policy. The food loss and business interruption, therefore, did not result from direct physical loss or damage by a covered cause, justifying the denial of the claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

    February 19, 2019 —
    The Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision yesterday finding no coverage for fire damage to a building is a cautionary tale for companies acquiring other companies. Erie Ins. Exch. v. EPC MD 15, LLC, 2019 WL 238168 (Va. Jan. 17, 2019). In that case, Erie Insurance issued a property insurance policy to EPC. The policy covered EPC only and did not cover any subsidiaries of EPC. EPC then acquired the sole member interest in Cyrus Square, LLC. Following the acquisition, fire damaged a building that Cyrus Square owned. EPC sought coverage under its property insurance policy. Because the policy did not cover Cyrus Square, EPC argued that a provision extending coverage to “newly acquired buildings” applied, contending that EPC had newly acquired Cyrus Square’s building by virtue of becoming the sole member interest in the LLC. Based on the law relative to LLCs and its interpretation of the policy, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled against EPC. It found that although EPC had acquired Cyrus Square, it had not “newly acquired” the building and so the “newly acquired buildings” coverage extension did not apply. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    January 04, 2018 —
    Originally Published by CDJ on March 1, 2017 I know, you’re probably looking for a punchline, and likely thinking something along the lines of “only a construction attorney would be sitting in his office and come up with such an analogy,” but I really do think it’s a good one. When you are buying a car, you look for priorities. Is the color what you want? Is the motor a hybrid or a v-6? Does it have Android Auto? What is the fuel mileage? All of these things may be more or less important to you. If you can get your priorities for a price that is attractive, you will likely let some other less important items, e. g. trunk space or rear seat leg room, slide and purchase the car anyway. Furthermore, you may use these minor items as negotiating points to either get one of the priorities or a lower price. Of course the dealership will want to get its priorities, likely a sale and a profit, when negotiating and will have certain items that it won’t move on just as you have terms that you won’t move on. Much like when you walk onto the car lot, and particularly as a subcontractor looking at a contract from a general contractor, or a GC looking at the contract from the owner of a project, a construction contract presented to you is the starting point. When looking at the contract, be sure to have some non-negotiable items in mind when taking a critical eye to the terms of that contract. Some of these terms may be more or less negotiable depending on your experience with the other party to the construction contract. For instance, striking a pay if paid clause may be less important with a paying party with whom you have a 10 year history without payment problems. On the other hand, if it is your first contract with the other party, a stricter list may be required. So, much like a dealer that you know will stand behind its cars, you may be more willing to take more “risk” in entering a construction contract with a trusted/known owner or GC. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Women in Construction Aren’t Silent Anymore. They Are Using TikTok to Battle Discrimination

    March 06, 2022 —
    How does it feel to be a woman working in a male-dominated industry? It means an everyday fight on gender bias, discrimination, pay inequality, and a bunch of mansplaining. Though the construction industry progressed– over 1.2 million women work in construction, up from 619,000 in 1985–women continue to be a minority. Among the women working in the industry, almost 9 out of 10 women have an office role, while only 2.5% are tradespeople. The situation looks grimmer for women in higher positions as only 16% hold executive roles, and only 2% are CEOs. The issue becomes troublesome considering that 45% of women indicated that the lack of women role models working in senior positions halted advancement in their careers. Gender discrimination was always prevalent in the construction industry, though it shows higher in today’s statistics. In 2020, the annual study of women in construction showed 72% of women in construction face discrimination, up from 66% in 2005. The increase doesn’t mean there is an increase in workplace discrimination; instead, it shows women are raising their voices for the issue. Today, women are using social media to show the prejudice they confront every day, inspire each other to speak up, and showcase their competencies within the industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Workwear Guru