BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design 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


    Lightstone Committing $2 Billion to Hotel Projects

    "Decay" Found Ambiguous in Collapse Case

    PSA: Virginia DOLI Amends COVID Workplace Standard

    New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify

    California Appellate Court Rules That Mistakenly Grading the Wrong Land Is Not an Accident

    Hawaii Federal District Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement on Volcano Damage

    A Vision and Strategy for the Adoption of Open International Standards

    Electronic Signatures On Contracts: Are They Truly Compliant?

    Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Inverse Condemnation Action

    ZLien Startup has Discovered a Billion in Payments for Clients

    Undocumented Debris at Mississippi Port Sparks Legal Battle

    Paris ‘Locks of Love’ Overload Bridges, Threatening Structures

    Tall and Sustainable Is Not an Easy Fix

    CDJ’s #8 Topic of the Year: California’s Board of Equalization Tower

    The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: A.B. 1701’s Requirement that General Contractors Pay Subcontractor Employee Wages Will Do More Harm Than Good

    Best U.S. Home Sales Since 2007 Show Momentum in Housing Market

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

    Mortgage Bonds Stare Down End of Fed Easing as Gains Persist

    Drafting the Bond Form, Particularly Performance Bond Form

    Keeping KeyArena's Landmark Lid Overhead at Climate Pledge Arena Redevelopment Is A 22,000-Ton Balancing Act

    Illinois Attorney General Warns of Home Repair Scams

    When is a Contract not a Contract?

    New Hampshire Asbestos Abatement Firm Pleads Guilty in Federal Fraud Case

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California FAIR Plan Limited to Coverage Provided by Statutory Fire Insurance Policy

    I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

    Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Recovery Practice, Andrea DeField and Cary D. Steklof, Recognized as Legal Elite

    Duty to Defend Affirmed in Connecticut Construction Defect Case

    Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

    Georgia State and Local Governments Receive Expanded Authority for Conservation Projects

    New Tariffs Could Shorten Construction Expansion Cycle

    Watch Your Step – Playing Golf on an Outdoor Course Necessarily Encompasses Risk of Encountering Irregularities in the Ground Surface

    Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton

    Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020: Yet Another Reason to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

    The (Jurisdictional) Rebranding of The CDA’s Sum Certain Requirement

    Thank Your Founding Fathers for Mechanic’s Liens

    Canada Housing Starts Increase on Multiple-Unit Projects

    The Starter Apartment Is Nearly Extinct in San Francisco and New York

    CISA Clarifies – Construction is Part of Critical Infrastructure Activities

    Congratulations 2019 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Construction Needs Collaborative Planning

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

    Call Me Maybe? . . . Don’t Waive Your Rights Under the Right to Repair Act’s Prelitigation Procedures

    Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense

    Termination of Construction Contracts

    Court Holds That Self-Insured Retentions Exhaust Vertically And Awards Insured Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Stringfellow Site Coverage Dispute

    Coverage Issues: When You Need Your Own Lawyer in a Construction Defect Suit

    Liability Insurer Precluded from Intervening in Insured’s Lawsuit

    Policy's One Year Suit Limitation Does Not Apply to Challenging the Insurer's Claims Handling

    Contractors and Owners Will Have an Easier Time Identifying Regulated Wetlands Following Recent U.S. Supreme Court Opinion
    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

    How Retro-Commissioning Can Extend the Life of a Building—and the Planet

    July 10, 2023 —
    Sustainability initiatives in the built environment need not be limited to new construction or other large expenditures. Aging facilities have the potential to extend their years of service while also combating greenhouse gas emissions. But what is the best course of action? From building design initiatives such as net zero and electrification to renewables and green building certifications, it can be a complicated and overwhelming field to navigate. Building owners and property managers may question if they are pursuing the correct programs to minimize their organization’s negative impacts on the environment. With all the initiatives, buzzwords and fancy awards surrounding these initiatives, there are energy-efficiency strategies available to buildings that cut through this noise—strategies that are cost effective, quick to implement, widely abundant and result in an immediate reduction in a building’s impact on climate change. Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Zweibruck, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Court Construes Breach of Contract Exclusion Narrowly in Duty-to-Defend Case

    September 10, 2018 —
    In a victory for policyholders, a recent decision from the Western District of Texas narrowly construed a common breach-of-contract exclusion and held that the insurer had a duty to defend its insured against an underlying lawsuit over construction defects. The allegations potentially supported a covered claim, as the conduct of the insured’s subcontractor could have been an independent, “but for” cause of the property damage at issue, thereby triggering the insurer’s duty to defend. In Slay, the insured – a construction company – was hired by a city to design and construct a municipal sports complex, including Little League baseball fields, a softball field, parking lots, and a swimming pool. The construction company hired a subcontractor to perform various services on the project, including paving parking lots and laying the cement for the pool. After completing the project, one of the construction company’s employees noticed cracking in the parking lot and the pool. The construction company notified the city and tried to work out a repair plan, but the city refused and eventually sued, alleging construction defects and asserting claims for breach of contract and negligence. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    June 17, 2015 —
    The Distressed Condominium Relief Act had been poised to expire on July 1st, but has now been extended by two additional years by the Florida legislature, the National Review reported. The act was Part VII of the Condominium Act in 2010, and has been previously extended twice. According to the National Review, “This Legislation attempted to allay the fears of potential investors about incurring developer liability in connection with the purchase of bulk units. The Act created a shield in favor of bulk purchasers from such potential liability, especially construction defects liability.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases

    November 26, 2014 —
    In Nevada, homeowners who sue a builder for residential constructional defects may recover attorneys’ fees and costs caused by the defect. Many times, the request for attorneys’ fees can outpace the size of the actual claim for defects. However, Nevada provides builders with two ways to potentially shift the right to recover attorneys’ fees and costs away from the homeowner and to the builder. The first arises during the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 40 process (Nevada’s Right to Repair law). After a builder receives notice of construction defects, it is required to provide the claimant with a written response to each defect, which may include a proposal for monetary compensation (including contribution from a subcontractor, supplier, or design professional). See NRS 40.6472. If a claimant unreasonably rejects a reasonable written offer of settlement included in the response and decides to commence litigation, the court may deny the claimant’s attorneys’ fees and costs and award attorneys’ fees and costs to the builder. See NRS 40.650. Thus, by including a reasonable offer of monetary compensation in a Chapter 40 response, a builder could possibly avoid paying any fees and costs and even recover its own fees in defending against the claim. A second method for shifting fees and costs is through a written offer of judgment (OOJ). See NRS 17.115 and NRCP 68. Not limited solely to construction defect matters, an OOJ is a useful tool in all kinds of litigation. OOJs are designed to facilitate and encourage pre-trial settlement by incentivizing parties to make reasonable settlement offers that—when unreasonably rejected—have the consequence of shifting the right to recover attorneys’ fees. Basically, when a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the court cannot award any attorneys’ fees and costs to the rejecting party and may award attorneys’ fees incurred from the date of the offer to the entry of judgment, as well as all reasonable costs, to the party who made the offer. In a recent decision, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that when a homeowner rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, it can wipe out that homeowner’s right to Chapter 40 fees and costs. See Gunderson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Feb. 27, 2014). In other words, “While NRS Chapter 40 permits an award of reasonable attorney fees proximately caused by a construction defect, it does not guarantee it.” Id. Because of the potentially harsh consequences of rejecting an OOJ, there are specific requirements that must be met to trigger them. An offer of judgment must be made in writing, can be made at any time at least 10 days before trial, and is irrevocable for 10 days with no provision for withdrawal before the 10 days expire. See Nava v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 396, 46 P.3d 60 (2002). A party may make successive offers of judgment, but the most recent offer extinguishes previous offers and is controlling for determining the date from which attorneys’ fees may be awarded. See Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006). In Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983), the Nevada Supreme Court explained that the purpose of OOJs are not to cause plaintiffs to unfairly forego legitimate claims. However, when a valid offer of judgment is made, the offer is rejected, and the party rejecting the offer fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, a court must evaluate whether the plaintiff's claim was brought in good faith; whether the offer of judgment was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount; whether the plaintiff's decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith; and whether the fees sought by the offer are reasonable and justified. “After weighing the foregoing factors, the district judge may, where warranted, award up to the full amount of fees requested.” Id. It is worth noting that in Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006), the Nevada Supreme Court held that when a party rejects a reasonable OOJ and is foreclosed from recovering fees and costs, the party is likewise foreclosed from an award of fees and costs under Chapter 40. This means that even if a builder fails to include a monetary settlement offer as part of a Chapter 40 response, it may still avoid paying the claimant’s fees and costs with a reasonable and timely OOJ. Finally, it is important to remember that OOJs are a powerful tool that can cut both ways. If an OOJ is not reasonable and timely, or if it fails to contemplate all the potential recovery of an offeree, the OOJ may have no effect on the outcome of a case. Moreover, if a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, that party could end up paying the offeror’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the offer. Given this powerful impact, OOJs should be an integral part of pre-litigation planning and overall litigation strategy. About the Author Casey J. Quinn is an associate in the Las Vegas office of Newmeyer & Dillion LLP. His practice focuses on complex commercial, construction, and insurance litigation and appellate work. Casey can be reached by email at Casey.Quinn@ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Bad Faith in Insurer's Denial of Collapse Claim

    July 15, 2024 —
    The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer on the insured's claims for collapse and bad faith. Christopher M. Wolpert Saddletree Holding, LLC v. Evanston Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10377 (10th Cir. April 30, 2024). On May 7, 2019, Saddletree filed a claim with Evanston for damages sustained to its building which was used as a community events center. After a winter of heavy snowfall, Saddletree discovered that the building's steel support columns had buckled two or more inches and the roof had deflected downward approximately six inches. Evanston retained an engineer to inspect the building. The engineer determined that the damage was the result of the building's inadequate "design and/or construction." Evanston disclaimed coverage under the policy's exclusion for damage caused by "hidden or latent defects" or "any quality in property that causes it to damage or destroy itself." 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

    Purely “Compensatory” Debts Owed by Attorneys to Clients (Which Are Not Disciplinary or Punitive Fees Imposed by the State Bar) Are Dischargeable In Bankruptcy

    April 28, 2016 —
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Scheer v. The State Bar of California (4/14/16 – Case no. 2:14-cv-04829-JFW) reversed the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s decision that a suspended attorney’s debt was nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). In Scheer, the client (Clark) retained attorney Scheer to help modify his home mortgage loan. Clark paid Scheer $5,500 before any modification occurred. Clark then fired Scheer and sought return of the $5,500 under California’s mandatory attorney fee dispute arbitration program. An arbitrator concluded that, although Scheer performed competently, she violated California Civil Code §2944.7(a) by receiving advance fees for residential mortgage modification services. Although the arbitrator believed that Scheer’s violations were neither willful nor malicious, he concluded California law required a full refund of the improperly collected fees. Scheer made a few payments against the arbitration award but, claiming a lack of funds, failed to pay the outstanding balance. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects

    November 27, 2013 —
    The Maryland Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court, recently reaffirmed that condominium association have broad discretion in suing for construction defects in when they are representing at least two unit owners. Nicholas D. Cowie of the Baltimore-based construction defect legal firm Cowie & Mott, gives his summary of the case on his firm’s web site. Mr. Cowie notes that the Council of Unit Owners of Bentley Place Condominium sued the developer and builder for construction defects in both common areas and within units, representing itself and “two or more” unit owners. A jury awarded $6.6 million; the builder and developer appealed. The court ruled on the appeal that the Council of Unit Owners had a right to pursue these claims, and could recover full damage to common elements, even if some owners are time-barred due to their date of purchase. Mr. Cowie represented the Council of Unit Owners during the lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Best Practices in Construction– What are Yours?

    November 26, 2014 —
    The latest Engineering News Record had an interesting article on Best Practices in Construction written by Deron Cowan of Zurich Services Corporation. In the articles, Mr. Cowan emphasizes the importance of best practices and the methodology to develop them. As Mr. Cowan notes, best practices are intended to eliminate, reduce and manage risks and all construction companies should be fully engaged in correctly executing and accomplishing risk analysis to meet the demands of their practices. 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