BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expert
    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


    California Team Secures Appellate Victory on Behalf of Celebrity Comedian Kathy Griffin in Dispute with Bel Air Neighbor

    Additional Insured Status Survives Summary Judgment Stage

    Kushner Company Files Suit Against Jersey City Over Delays to Planned Towers

    Wildfire Risk Scores and Insurance Placement: What You Should Know

    Texas Supreme Court to Rehear Menchaca Bad Faith Case

    Endorsements Preclude Coverage for Alleged Faulty Workmanship

    OSHA Begins Enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard. Try Saying That Five Times Real Fast

    City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

    Parties Can Agree to Anything In A Settlement Agreement………Or Can They?

    Western Specialty Contractors Branches in San Francisco and Cleveland Take Home Top Industry Honors

    Contract’s Definition of “Substantial Completion” Does Not Apply to Third Party for Purposes of SOL, Holds Court of Appeal

    With an Eye Already in the Sky, Crane Camera Goes Big Data

    Injury to Employees Endorsement Eliminates Coverage for Insured Employer

    Buyer Alleges Condo Full of Mold and Mice

    Supreme Court of Idaho Rules That Substantial Compliance With the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act Suffices to Bring Suit

    Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

    School for Building Trades Helps Fill Need for Skilled Workers

    Mortgage Applications in U.S. Jump 11.6% as Refinancing Surges

    English v. RKK. . . The Rest of the Story

    Slowing Home Sales Show U.S. Market Lacks Momentum: Economy

    Competent, Substantial Evidence Carries Day in Bench Trial

    Concerns About On-the-job Safety Persist

    Appeals Court Rules that CGL Policy Doesn’t Cover Subcontractors’ Faulty Work

    What Cal/OSHA’s “Permanent” COVID Standards Mean for Employers

    Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional Insured

    New York Appellate Team Obtains Affirmance of Dismissal of Would-Be Labor Law Action Against Municipal Entities

    Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects

    Montana Significantly Revises Its Product Liability Laws

    Why a Challenge to Philadelphia’s Project Labor Agreement Would Be Successful

    Building Amid the COVID Challenge

    Hydrogen Powers Its Way from Proof of Concept to Reality in Real Estate

    No Coverage for Collapse of Building

    Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact

    Connecticut Federal District Court Again Finds "Collapse" Provisions Ambiguous

    Pancakes Decision Survives Challenge Before Hawaii Appellate Court

    Awarding Insurer Summary Judgment Before Discovery Completed Reversed

    Insureds Survive Summary Judgment on Coverage for Hurricane Loss

    Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Housing Starts in U.S. Climb to an Almost Eight-Year High

    Newmeyer Dillion Named One of "The Best Places To Work In Orange County" by Orange County Business Journal

    No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    BofA Said to Near Mortgage Deal for Up to $17 Billion

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Honors Four Partners as ‘Lawyers of the Year’

    Top 10 Cases of 2019

    Colorado “occurrence”

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Recognized Among The Top 50 Construction Law Firms by Construction Executive

    The Louvre Abu Dhabi’s Mega-Structure Domed Roof Completed

    A Court-Side Seat: As SCOTUS Decides Another Regulatory “Takings” Case, a Flurry of Action at EPA
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    June 18, 2019 —
    It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Colorado Supreme Court Grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes

    June 22, 2016 —
    We have previously reported on the Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes case, in which the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld a provision in an association's declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, which required declarant consent before an arbitration provision could be amended out of the document. To read the past articles on the case, please review Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals' Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases and The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals. Today, the Colorado Supreme Court granted the association's petition for writ of certiorari, en banc, on the following reframed issues:
    Whether the court of appeals erred by holding as a matter of first impression that Colorado’s Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) permits a developer-declarant to reserve the power to veto unit owner votes to amend common interest community declarations.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McClain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McClain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Colorado Court of Appeals looked at that state’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act in determining if a general contractor could add subcontractors as third-party defendants to a construction defect lawsuit. Shaw Construction, LLC was the general contraction of the Roslyn Court condominium complex, and was sued by the homeowners’ association in a construction defect case. United Builder Services was the drywall subcontractor on the project. MB Roofing had installed roofs, gutters, and downspouts. The certificate of occupancy for the last building was issued on March 10, 2004. The project architect certified completion of all known remaining architectural items in June, 2004.

    The HOA filed a claim against the developers of the property on January, 21, 2009. A week later, the HOA amended its complaint to add Shaw, the general contractor. Shaw did not file its answer and third-party complaint until March 29, 2010, sending its notice of claim under the CDARA on March 30.

    The subcontractors claimed that the six-year statute of limitations had ended twenty days prior. Shaw claimed that the statute of limitations ran until six years after the architect’s certification, or that the HOA’s suit had tolled all claims.

    The trial court granted summary judgment to the subcontractors, determining that “substantial completion occurs ‘when an improvement to real property achieves a degree of completion at which the owner can conveniently utilize the improvement of the purpose it was intended.’”

    The appeals court noted that “Shaw correctly points out that the CDARA does not define ‘substantial completion.’” The court argued that Shaw’s interpretation went against the history and intent of the measure. “Historically, a construction professional who received a complaint responded by ‘cross-nam[ing] or add[ing] everybody and anybody who had a part to play in the construction chain.’” The court concluded that the intent of the act was to prevent unnamed subcontractors from being tolled.

    The court further rejected Shaw’s reliance on the date of the architect’s certification as the time of “substantial completion,” instead agreeing with the trial court that “the architect’s letter on which Shaw relies certified total completion.”

    The appeals court upheld the trial court’s determination that the statute of limitation began to run no later than March 10, 2004 and that Shaw’s complaint of March 29, 2010 was therefore barred. The summary judgment was upheld.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Calling Hurricanes a Category 6 Risks Creating Deadly Confusion

    March 25, 2024 —
    Category 5 has become part of the world’s lexicon to describe a disaster of monumental proportion. Now, thanks to climate change, a pair of scientists don’t think that is a dire enough level to describe hurricanes. They raise the possibility, on a “hypothetical” basis, for a Category 6. Global warming has increased the energy available for storms to grow stronger, according to a paper by Michael Wehner, senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, and James Kossin, climate and atmospheric professor at the University of Wisconsin. Their work was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the US. The scientists make a case for adjusting the five-step, Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale, which is used to describe hurricane power. A Category 5 is assigned when storm winds reach 157 miles per hour, and today that goes up to the limit of physics. Wehner and Kossin suggest considering anything over 192 mph a Category 6. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian K Sullivan, Bloomberg

    Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional

    June 03, 2019 —
    Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) has declared unconstitutional a late-2018 law that would create an authority to oversee construction of a key tunnel. The tunnel would house an oil-and-gas pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, ENR
    Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America ® 2016

    February 23, 2016 —
    January 21, 2016 - The Best Lawyers in America® 2016, is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys earning this honor for 2016 include the following: William G. Baumgaertner - Personal Injury Litigation Denis J. Moriarty - Insurance Law Since its inception in 1983, Best Lawyers has become regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Because Best Lawyers is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey in which more than 39,000 leading attorneys cast almost 3.1 million votes on the legal abilities of other lawyers in their practice areas, and because lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed, inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Florida Governor Bans Foreign Citizens From Buying Land in Florida

    May 29, 2023 —
    Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. (May 19, 2023) - Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed a bill prohibiting Chinese citizens who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents from purchasing any residential or commercial land or farmland in Florida. Senate Bill 264, titled “Interests of Foreign Countries,” will prohibit Chinese nationals from buying land unless they are American citizens or permanent residents. The bill also imposes certain restrictions on Chinese citizens – and others, including Russians and Venezuelans – with non-tourist visas when it comes to buying land near a military base in Florida. For example, and in an exception to the new law, Chinese citizens with non-tourist visas would be limited to buying fewer than two acres of land that is at least five miles away from any military institutions. Senate Bill 264 reads in pertinent part:
    …A foreign principal may not directly or indirectly own, have a controlling interest in, or acquire by purchase, grant, devise, or descent agricultural land or any interest, except a de minimis indirect interest, in such land in this state…. …A foreign principal may not directly or indirectly own, or have a controlling interest in, or acquire by purchase, grant, devise, or descent any interest, except a de minimis indirect interest, in real property on or within 10 miles of any military installation or critical infrastructure facility in this state…
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Gnesin, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Gnesin may be contacted at Michael.Gnesin@lewisbrisbois.com

    Only Two Weeks Until BHA’s Texas MCLE Seminar in San Antonio

    April 28, 2014 —
    There are just two weeks remaining to sign up for Bert L. Howe & Associate’s inaugural Texas MCLE seminar, “THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROCESS & CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION.” This activity will be presented on Friday, May 9th at noon in BHA’s San Antonio offices, located at 17806 IH 10, Suite 300, San Antonio, TX 78256. There is no cost for attendance at this seminar and lunch will be provided. This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.0 credit hours, of which 0.0 credit hours will apply to legal ethics/professional responsibility credit. The seminar will be presented by Don MacGregor, general contractor and project manager. Water intrusion through doors, windows and roofing systems, as well as soil and foundation-related movement, and the resultant damage associated therewith, are the triggering effects for the vast majority of homeowner complaints today and serve as the basis for most residential construction defect litigation. The graphic and animation-supported workshop/lecture activity will focus on the residential construction process from site preparation through occupancy, an examination of associated damages most often encountered when investigating construction defect claims, and the inter-relationships between the developer, general contractor, sub trades and design professionals. Typical plaintiff homeowner/HOA expert allegations will be examined in connection with those building components most frequently associated with construction defect and claims litigation. The workshop will examine: * Typical construction materials, and terminology associated with residential construction * The installation process and sequencing of major construction elements, including interrelationship with other building assemblies * The parties (subcontractors) typically associated with major construction assemblies and components * An analysis of exposure/allocation to responsible parties. Attendance at THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROCESS & CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION seminar will provide the attendee with: * A greater understanding of the terms and conditions encountered when dealing with common construction defect issues * A greater understanding of contractual scopes of work encountered when reviewing construction contract documents * The ability to identify, both quickly and accurately, potentially responsible parties * An understanding of damages most often associated with construction defects, as well as a greater ability to identify conditions triggering coverage Course #: 901290467 / Sponsor #: 14152. To register for the event, please email Don MacGregor at dmac@berthowe.com. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Don at (210) 540-9017 (office) or (714) 713-4956 (cell). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of