BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windows
    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


    New OSHA Rule Creates Electronic Reporting Requirement

    Manhattan Condo Resale Prices Reach Record High

    County Sovereign Immunity Invokes Change-Order Ordinance

    Difficulty in Defending Rental Supplier’s Claim Under Credit Application

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Guided Choice Mediation

    The Show Must Go On: Navigating Arbitration in the Wake of the COVID-19 Outbreak

    Construction Defect Headaches Can Be Avoided

    OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

    Global Emissions From Buildings, Construction Climb to Record Levels

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied

    Revised Cause Identified for London's Wobbling Millennium Bridge After Two Decades

    Construction Attorneys Tell DBR that Business is on the Rise

    Putting 3D First, a Model Bridge Rises in Norway

    Cape Town Seeks World Cup Stadium Construction Collusion Damages

    Construction Problems May Delay Bay Bridge

    Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

    Parties to an Agreement to Arbitrate May be Compelled to Arbitrate with Non-Parties

    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    Contractor Prevailing Against Subcontractor On Common Law Indemnity Claim

    Pass-Through Subcontractor Claims, Liquidating Agreements, and Avoiding a Two-Front War

    Construction Law Alert: Concrete Supplier Botches Concrete Mix, Gets Thrashed By Court of Appeal for Trying to Blame Third Party

    D.R. Horton Earnings Rise as Sales and Order Volume Increase

    Calling Hurricanes a Category 6 Risks Creating Deadly Confusion

    Chinese Billionaire Sues Local Governments Over Project Payment

    Greg Dillion & Newmeyer Dillion Named 2019 Good Scout Award Recipient

    Yellowstone Park Aims for Quick Reopening After Floods

    Conversations with My Younger Self: 5 Things I Wish I Knew Then

    School Board Sues Multiple Firms over Site Excavation Problem

    The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

    New 2021 ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Standards Effective February 23, 2021

    Balancing Risk and Reward: The Complexities of Stadium Construction Projects

    Insurers' Motion to Determine Lack of Occurrence Fails

    Colorado Governor Polis’s Executive Order D 2020 101: Keeping Up with Colorado’s Shifting Eviction Landscape during COVID-19

    Insurance Measures Passed by 2015 Hawaii Legislature

    Certifying Claim Under Contract Disputes Act

    How Artificial Intelligence Can Transform Construction

    U.S. Supreme Court Allows Climate Change Lawsuits to Proceed in State Court

    SkenarioLabs Uses AI for Property Benchmarking

    IRMI Expert Commentary: Managing Insurance Coverage from Multiple Insurers

    New York Establishes a Registration Requirement for Contractors and Subcontractors Performing Public Works and Covered Private Projects

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

    Eleven Payne & Fears Attorneys Honored by Best Lawyers

    Does Arbitration Apply to Contemporaneously Executed Contracts (When One of the Contracts Does Not Have an Arbitration Provision)?

    Georgia Court of Appeals Upholds Denial of Coverage Because Insurance Broker Lacked Agency to Accept Premium Payment

    Hold on Just One Second: Texas Clarifies Starting Point for Negligence Statute of Limitations

    Brown Orders Mandatory Water Curbs for California Drought

    Why Builders Should Reconsider Arbitration Clauses in Construction Contracts

    The Great Fallacy: If Builders Would Just Build It Right There Would Be No Construction Defect Litigation

    Enforceability of Contract Provisions Extending Liquidated Damages Beyond Substantial Completion

    Subrogation 101 (and Why Should I Care?)
    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

    Tokyo Building Flaws May Open Pandora's Box for Asahi Kasei

    October 28, 2015 —
    Japanese real estate investment trusts are joining apartment owners and regulators in pushing Asahi Kasei Corp. for answers on an apartment building sagging sideways on the outskirts of Tokyo, as concerns are mounting that it may not be an isolated case. REITs including Advance Residence Investment, Nippon Accommodation Fund Inc., Daiwa House Residential Investment Corp. and Japan Rental Housing Investment Inc. have all asked Asahi Kasei for details on what other buildings might be flawed, according to the trusts. Asahi Kasei disclosed on Thursday the names of prefectures where the company has undertaken work in the past 10 years on more than 3,000 buildings, after the land ministry requested the data. The sites include 342 schools, 257 medical and health-care facilities, 696 housing complexes and 217 office buildings, the firm said. Asahi Kasei, the subcontractor of the project, said a unit didn’t properly install foundation piles at an apartment building in Yokohama, and the division falsified data on the work. The scandal has sent Asahi Kasei’s shares down more than 21 percent since Oct. 13, when news of the flawed building first emerged. Shares of Sumitomo Mitsui Construction Co., the contractor, plunged 25 percent and those of Mitsui Fudosan Co., which sold units at the Yokohama project in 2006, have tumbled 5 percent since then. All three companies said that the impact of the incident on their earnings is not yet clear. Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg reporters Kathleen Chu, Joji Mochida and Katsuyo Kuwako Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    UPDATE: Trade Secrets Pact Allows Resumed Work on $2.6B Ga. Battery Plant

    April 19, 2021 —
    Construction on a $2.6-billion battery manufacturing plant near Atlanta can continue under an agreement reached April 11 between two rival South Korean auto battery makers—including SK Innovation, which is owner of the half-completed project. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nevada OSHA Provides Additional Requirements for Construction Employers to Address Feasibility of Social Distancing at Construction Sites

    May 04, 2020 —
    When Nevada’s Governor identified construction as an essential business amid the initial directives of the COVID-19 state of emergency, the executive order required construction employers to “maintain strict social distancing practices to facilitate a minimum of six feet of separation between workers.” Now, nearly a month later, Nevada’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has recognized that strict social distancing measures are not always practical or feasible among workers on an active construction site. On April 20, 2020, Nevada OSHA issued revised guidelines addressing ongoing construction activity when social distancing cannot practically be maintained. The guidelines continue to emphasize that safety and training meetings, tailgate talks, and similar gatherings must be restricted to 10 people or less. Additionally, the employer remains responsible for monitoring employees on lunch breaks, slack periods and in employee parking areas to ensure compliance with social distancing protocols. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aaron Lovaas, Newmeyer Dillion
    Mr. Lovaas may be contacted at aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com

    Two More Lawsuits Filed Over COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    April 13, 2020 —
    Two more lawsuits were filed yesterday concerning business interruption losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs, the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations, filed their lawsuits, copies of which can be found here and here, in Oklahoma state court against a litany of property insurers, led by AIG. The lawsuits seek an order that any financial losses suffered by the nations’ casinos, restaurants and other businesses as a result of the coronavirus pandemic are covered by the nations’ insurance policies. According to the complaints:
    On or about March of 2020, the United States of America became infected by COVID 19 resulting in a pandemic. As a result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property sustained direct physical loss or damage and will continue to sustain direct physical loss or damage covered by the policies, including but not limited to business interruption, extra expense, interruption by civil authority, limitations on ingress and egress, and expenses to reduce loss. As a direct result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property has been damaged, as described above, and cannot be used for its intended purpose.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

    Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge

    July 31, 2013 —
    There might have been a number of problems with San Francisco’s new Bay Bridge, but despite all that, the Contra-Costa Times says that the experts say that there is no reason for panic. And although the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, Mark DeSaulnier, has been a critic of the bridge, he says that he is “convinced the old bridge is unsafe.” Although DeSaulnier wants an independent review, construction of the bridge has been investigated by what the Times refers to as “dozens of internationally renowned bridge engineers and other experts.” According to the experts, the problems with the bridge fall in to three categories, ranging from the fixable, through the fixed, to those that were never actual problems. Of the last category, the Oakland Tribune reported in 2005 that construction workers claimed they were told to “conceal shoddy welds to speed up construction,” but the Federal Highway Administration outside experts found no evidence of bad welds. In another case, bad welds were discovered at the factory where a span was being constructed. The process was changed and the bad welds repaired. Caltrans has delayed the opening of the Bay Bridge to December 10. Earlier plans were to open the bridge in September. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Lane Construction Sues JV Partner Skanska Over Orlando I-4 Project

    February 08, 2021 —
    One of Florida’s most troubled construction projects is now in court, with one partner in a design-build joint venture pitted against another. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Documenting Contract Changes in Construction

    December 07, 2020 —
    Construction projects are almost inevitably subject to changes in the contract. A fundamental understanding of construction changes, how those changes are governed and what is necessary to ensure a complete change are of paramount importance to all parties involved in a construction project. This article is not a treatise on construction contract changes; rather, it provides advice on actions a contractor can take during construction that will help the contractor recover time or money when a contract’s schedule or scope of work needs to be changed. Changes Defined Changes to a construction project affect two broad spheres—timing and scope of work. Changes usually present themselves as either a change order or a change directive. Each may go by a different name depending on the contractual scheme in the project’s prime contract, but they essentially have the same characteristics. The difference between a change order and a change directive is one of agreement. A change order (in the owner-prime contractor context) occurs when the contractor and the owner agree to a change in the timing or scope of work in the contract. Normally, the change order is a written agreement to change the contract and is executed by the contractor and owner. Reprinted courtesy of J.D. Holzheauser, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Holzheauser may be contacted at jdholzheauser@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    September 09, 2011 —

    The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in the case of Franklin v. Mitchell. Walter Mitchell, doing business as Southern Classic Construction built a new home for the Franklins. The Franklins moved into the home in October 2001. In April 2006 they discovered sagging floors in both the bathroom and kitchen. They contacted Mitchell who suggested the flooring might be defective. The Franklins spent eight months attempting to contact the flooring manufacturer.

    In March 2007, the Franklins had the home inspected. The sagging was determined to be due to a loss of strength in the decking because of condensation from the air conditioning system. Air returns were not properly sealed and drawing moisture into the structure. There was mold on the decking and floor joints.

    When Mitchell was contacted by the Franklins, he told them his one-year warranty had expired but had the HVAC subcontractor, Southern Mechanical Heating & Air (owned by Mitchell’s father, Jim Mitchell), look at the situation. SMHA replaced and braced subfloors. Later, they entered the crawl space to tape ducts, seal the air return, and insulate the air vent housing. The Franklins were not satisfied with the repairs, as not all the ducts were taped, nor were the air vent housings insulated.

    Franklin complained to Walter Mitchell who again cited his one-year warranty. Jim Mitchell said he would not report complaints to his insurer, stating that the repairs were unnecessary, that the work had been done correctly in the first place, and it was only done at the request of Walter Mitchell.

    In February 2009, the Franklins sued Walker Mitchell. Mitchell denied the claims, citing in part the statute of limitations. Mitchell also filed complaints against three subcontractors, including his father’s firm. Mitchell received a summary judgment as the case started after Alabama’s six-year statute of limitations.

    The appeals court rejected the Franklin’s argument that the claim of damage did not start until they were aware it was due to a construction defect. The court noted that as Walter Mitchell was licensed as a “residential home builder, the statute the Franklins cite did not apply, as it concerns architects, engineers, and licensed general contactors.”

    Nor did they feel that Mitchells’ claim that his warranty had expired were sufficient to override the statute of limitations, quoting an earlier case, “Vague assurances do not amount to an affirmative inducement to delay filing suit.” Their claim of subsequent negligent repairs was rejected because Mitchell did not direct the specific actions taken by his father’s firm.

    Read the court’s decision…

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