BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering 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


    Partner John Toohey and Senior Associate Sammy Daboussi Obtain a Complete Defense Verdict for Their Contractor Client!

    California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

    Quick Note: Expert Testimony – Back to the Frye Test in Florida

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations

    The Biggest Trials Coming to Courts Around the World in 2021

    Virtual Jury Trials of Construction Disputes: The Necessary Union of Both Sides of the Brain

    Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage

    How to Make the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive

    Editorial: Qatar Is Champion of Safety Hypocrisy in Migrant Worker Deaths

    Serial ADA Lawsuits Targeting Small Business Owners

    More Construction Defects for San Francisco’s Eastern Bay Bridge Expansion

    Federal Subcontractor Who Failed to Follow FAR Regulations Finds That “Fair” and “Just” are Not Synonymous

    PSA: Performing Construction Work in Virginia Requires a Contractor’s License

    Designer of World’s Tallest Building Wants to Turn Skyscrapers Into Batteries

    Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

    Additional Insured Obligations and the Underlying Lawsuit

    Massachusetts High Court: Attorney's Fee Award Under Consumer Protection Act Not Covered by General Liability Insurance Policy

    Housing Starts Rebound in U.S. as Inflation Eases: Economy

    Party Loses Additional Insured Argument by Improper Pleading

    MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk

    Punchlist: The News We Didn’t Quite Get To – May 2016

    Dispute Over Exhaustion of Primary Policy

    Florida Federal Court Reinforces Principle That Precise Policy Language Is Required Before An Insurer Can Deny Coverage Based On An Exclusion

    Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

    Mortgage Battle Flares as U.K. Homebuying Loses Allure

    The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

    Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

    Climate Change a Factor in 'Unprecedented' South Asia Floods

    Stair Collapse Points to Need for Structural Inspections

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Inverse Condemnation Action

    Relief Bill's Highway Funds Could Help Construction Projects

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2019

    Luxury Villa Fraudsters Jailed for Madeira Potato Field Scam

    NYC’s Developers Plow Ahead With Ambitious Plans to Reshape City

    After $15 Million Settlement, Association Gets $7.7 Million From Additional Subcontractor

    Replacement of Gym Floor Due to Sloppy Paint Job is Not Resulting Loss

    A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Citizen Suits and the Summer of 2022

    Canada Housing Starts Increase on Multiple-Unit Projects

    2016 Hawaii Legislature Enacts Five Insurance-Related Bills

    Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet

    New Home Permits Surge in Wisconsin

    Colorado Court Holds No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claim

    School District Settles Over Defective Athletic Field

    White House Seeks $310M To Fix Critical San Diego Wastewater Plant

    The Practical Distinction Between Anticipatory Breach and Repudiation and How to Deal with Both on Construction Projects

    The EEOC Is Actively Targeting the Construction Industry

    Traub Lieberman Team Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Client Under Florida’s Newly Implemented Summary Judgment Standard

    Anchorage Building Codes Credited for Limited Damage After Quakes

    Construction Defects and Commercial General Liability in Illinois
    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

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    April 25, 2011 —

    The city of El Paso has recently increased surety bonds required of contractors from $10,000 to $50,000, according to the El Paso Times. Proponents of the increase believe it was necessary to protect homeowners from fly-by-night builders, while opponents argue that the increase will have an adverse effect on an industry in that is already suffering due to the economic slowdown.

    Arguments for and against the increase have been flooding the blogosphere with their views. Christian Dorobantescu on the Small Business Entrepreneur Blog claims that “only about 15% of the city’s 2,500 contractors had been able to secure a higher bond to remain eligible for work after the new requirements were announced.” However, insurance companies have a different take. “From a surety broker standpoint, most contractors will be able qualify for the bond; some will just have to pay higher premium rates to obtain it,” a recent post on the Surety1 blog argues.

    While the increased bond may help homeowners deal with construction defect claims, it is not clear what effect it will have on builders in El Paso.

    Read more from the El Paso Times

    Read more from the Small Business Entrepreneur Blog…

    Read more from the Surety1 Blog…

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

    Out of the Black

    May 30, 2022 —
    Even if you previously weren’t familiar with the term “black swan event,” you’ve likely become intimately familiar with what one looks like over the past two years. Coined by author Nassim Taleb in his book The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, the term refers to a rare, unpredictable event—perhaps, say, a pandemic—that has an extreme impact. “Extreme” certainly seems to be an accurate description of the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the construction industry, at nearly every level. The Commercial Construction Index (CCI) fell from 74 to 56 during Q2 2020 and remained statistically unchanged through Q3 of that year. Recovery has been slow, with the CCI remaining eight points below pre-pandemic levels through the end of 2021. Prices for raw materials such as lumber and steel have been extremely volatile, reaching historic highs and dramatic lows. March and April of 2020 alone saw 1.1 million jobs disappear from the industry—roughly half as many jobs as were lost throughout the entire Great Recession (although many of these jobs have since returned). While the industry has persevered through what should be the worst of these effects, many contractors and project owners are now wondering: How can we predict the next black swan event? Reprinted courtesy of John Drentlaw, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Minnesota Addresses How Its Construction Statute of Repose Applies to Condominiums

    April 27, 2020 —
    Courts often struggle with the question of when the statute of repose starts to run for construction projects that involve multiple buildings or phases. In Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls Ass’n v. Housing Partners III-Lofts, LLC, 937 N.W.2d 430 (Minn. 2020) (Village Lofts), the Supreme Court of Minnesota addressed how Minnesota’s 10-year statute of repose, Minn. Stat. § 541.051, applies to claims arising from the construction of a condominium complex. The court held that the statute of repose begins to run at different times for: a) statutory residential warranty claims brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 327A.01 to 327A.08, et. seq.; and b) common law claims arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of the condominium buildings. As stated in Village Lofts, Housing Partners III-Lofts, LLC (Housing Partners) developed the Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls, a condominium complex consisting of Building A and Building B. Housing Partners retained Kraus-Anderson Construction Company (Kraus-Anderson) as the general contractor for Building A. Kraus-Anderson retained Elness Sweeney Graham Architects, Inc. (ESG), Doody Mechanical, Inc. (Doody) and Kenneth S. Kendle, P.E. (Kendle) to work on Building A. In September 2002, the City of Minneapolis (City) issued a partial certificate of occupancy (CO) for Building A, including the building’s public spaces. On October 4, 2002, Housing Partners filed the declaration creating the Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls condominium, to be operated by Village Lofts at St. Anthony Association (Village Lofts Association). On October 10, 2002, Housing Partners sold the first unit in Building A and in November of 2003, the City issued a CO for the entire building, excluding two units. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Courts Will Not Second-Guess Public Entities When it Comes to Design Immunity

    May 13, 2024 —
    It was a bizarre confluence of events. Jorgen Stufkosky was driving on SR-154 in Santa Ynez, California. Martha Aguayo was driving on the same highway ahead of Stufkosky when she struck a deer causing it to fly across the centerline into traffic from the opposite direction. The deer struck a SUV causing its driver to lose control. The driver of the SUV crossed the same centerline where he collided head on with Stufkosky, killing him. Stufkosky’s children later sued the California Department of Transportation in the case Stufkosky v. California Department of Transportation, 97 Cal.App.5th 492 (2023), alleging that their father’s death was due to Caltrans’ negligent design of SR-153, inadequate number of deer crossing signs, and its high posted speed limit. While in the trial court, Caltrans filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Caltrans was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the so called “design immunity” statute. The trial court agreed and the Stufloskys appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    The Moving Finish Line: Statutes of Limitation and Repose Are Not Always What They Seem

    June 01, 2020 —
    Having an end date for risk is important to construction professionals who need to know when they can close their books and destroy files relating to old projects. While professionals typically look to the statute of limitations and repose, these deadlines can sometimes be harder to determine than one might think. State Laws Prohibiting Alteration of Statutes of Limitation Many contractors seek to control the extent of their risk by negotiating the length of their liability period. In some instances, contractors may seek to shorten the statute of limitations to protect against stale claims. While in other instances, owners periodically negotiate for longer periods to ensure that they will not be time barred from pursuing valid claims. While the majority of states enforce such contractual provision, a number of states hold such clauses unenforceable. In these instances, the state’s original statute of limitations will apply regardless of what the contract says. Reprinted courtesy of Kenneth E. Rubinstein & Nathan Fennessy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Rubenstein may be contacted at krubinstein@preti.com Mr. Fennessy may be contacted at nfennessy@Preti.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Professional Malpractice Statute of Limitations in Construction Context

    June 26, 2023 —
    In an interesting dichotomy, which statute of limitations applies to professional malpractice claims relating to construction claims, i.e., in the construction context? Is it the two year statute of limitations in Florida Statute s. 95.11(4)( a) that governs professional malpractice claims or is it the four year statute of limitations in Florida Statute s. 95.11(3)(c) that governs actions “founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement toot real property”? This dichotomy led the appeal in American Automobile Ins. v. FDH Infrastructure Services, LLC, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1091a (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). This case sadly involved a construction accident that led to deaths. A contractor was engaged to install an antenna on an existing television tower. The contractor hired an engineering firm “to perform a structural analysis as to the stability and weight-bearing capacity of the tower. [The engineer] was contractually obligated to assess the proposed rigging plan…to lift the loads necessary to construct the antenna.” FDH Infrastructure Services, supra. Unfortunately, after the installation of the antenna commenced, the rigging components failed resulting in workers falling to their deaths. After insurers paid out benefits, they sued the engineering firm under equitable and contractual subrogation theories. The engineering firm moved for summary judgment arguing the subrogation claims were barred by the professional malpractice two year statute of limitations in section 95.11(4)(a). The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the engineering firm. 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

    Hail Damage Requires Replacement of Even Undamaged Siding

    February 05, 2015 —
    In a dispute over the property policy's requirement that lost or damaged property be repaired or replaced, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the policy language called for replacement of undamaged siding panels to obtain a color match. Cedar Bluff Townhome Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 Minn. LEXIS 661 (Minn. Dec. 17, 2014). During a hail storm, all 20 of Cedar Bluff's buildings sustained some damage. The roofs on all of the buildings needed to be replaced, and at least one siding panel on each building sustained damage. Eleven of the 20 buildings had three or fewer damaged panels. At the time of the hail storm, the siding was approximately 11 years old, and the color of the panels had faded. Replacement panels were available, but not in the same color. Cedar Bluff submitted a claim under its business owners' policy to American Family. The policy obligated the insurer to pay for "direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises . . . caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss." "Covered Property" was broadly defined in the policy to include buildings at the premises. 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

    Changing Course Midstream Did Not Work in River Dredging Project

    December 10, 2015 —
    A contractor learned a $12M lesson when it tried to change course on a Corps of Engineer river dredging project. The case also illustrates the importance of documenting problems on a project and providing notice of those problems to the owner. In Weston/Bean Joint Venture v U.S., Weston/Bean was awarded a Corps of Engineers project to provide maintenance dredging on the Miami River to a depth of 15 feet. The contract noted that the contractor may experience sediment, debris and rock, including soft to moderately hard limestone. The contractor encountered rocks early on in the project, but consistently submitted reports to the Corps of Engineers that nothing was experienced on the project that would lead to a change order or claim. And, for the first year of operations, the contractor made no claim for differing site conditions. Instead, the contractor terminated the subcontractor for not being able to process the rock uncovered during the dredging process. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com