BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling 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


    Environmental Law Violations: When you Should Hire a Lawyer

    What You Need to Know to Protect the Project Against Defect Claims

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    Most Common OSHA Violations Highlight Ongoing Risks

    Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

    Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

    Appellate Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    ASCE Statement on Biden Administration Permitting Action Plan

    Report: Construction Firms Could Better Protect Workers From Noise Hazards

    Wave Breaker: How a Living Shoreline Will Protect a Florida Highway and Oyster Bed

    Time Limits on Hidden Construction Defects

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

    Insurer Liable for Bad Faith Despite Actions of Insured Contributing to Excess Judgment

    A Court-Side Seat: Guam’s CERCLA Claim Allowed, a “Roundup” Verdict Upheld, and Judicial Process Privilege Lost

    Washington’s Court of Appeals Protects Contracting Parties’ Rights to Define the Terms of their Indemnity Agreements

    Hunton Partner Michael Levine Appointed to Law360’s 2024 Insurance Authority Property Editorial Advisory Board

    When Coronavirus Cases Spike at Construction Jobsites

    “Pay When Paid” Provisions May Not Be Dead, at Least Not Yet

    Definitions Matter in Illinois: Tenant Held Liable Only for Damage to Apartment Unit

    New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders

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

    California Beach Hotel to Get $185 Million Luxury Rebuild

    Connecticut Federal District Court Keeps Busy With Collapse Cases

    Extreme Weather Events Show Why the Construction Supply Chain Needs a Risk-Management Transformation

    Zetlin & De Chiara Ranked in the Top Tier for Construction Law by Legal 500 USA

    Future Army Corps Rulings on Streams and Wetlands: Changes and Delays Ahead

    Surplus Lines Carriers Cannot Compel Arbitration in Louisiana

    BIOHM Seeks to Turn Plastic Waste into Insulation Material with Mushrooms

    Toll Brothers to Acquire Shapell for $1.6 Billion

    California Assembly Bill Proposes an End to Ten Year Statute of Repose

    Court of Appeal Puts the “Equity” in Equitable Subrogation

    Who Is To Blame For Defective — And Still LEED Certified — Courthouse Square?

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”

    The New York Lien Law - Top Ten Things You Ought to Know

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Eliminates Loss from Hurricane

    Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

    Texas Supreme Court Finds Payment of Appraisal Award Does Not Absolve Insurer of Statutory Liability

    Why Is It So Hard to Kill This Freeway?

    Former Superintendent Sentenced in Rhode Island Tainted Fill Case

    OSHA: What to Expect in 2022

    Equitable Subrogation Part Deux: Mechanic’s Lien vs. Later Bank Deed of Trust

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    Broker's Motion for Summary Judgment on Negligence Claim Denied

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

    Thoughts on New Pay if Paid Legislation

    Condo Building Hits Highest Share of Canada Market Since 1971

    Colorado “occurrence”

    Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies

    Homeowner's Claim for Collapse Survives Summary Judgment

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion to Reject Claim for Construction Defects Upheld
    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

    First Lumber, Now Drywall as Canada-U.S. Trade Tensions Escalate

    November 30, 2016 —
    A new trade dispute has broken out between Canada and the U.S. that threatens to raise prices in Canada’s already overheated housing markets. The Canada Border Services Agency imposed a provisional tariff as high as 277 percent on U.S. drywall imports in September after ruling that manufacturers were dumping the product, or selling it below the price in their home market, undercutting local suppliers. The tariff has raised the price of drywall, or gypsum board as it’s also called, by as much as 30 percent and is causing “chaos” and delays as contractors scramble for alternative sources. Some builders say the tariff could add as much as C$13,000 ($9,671) to the cost of a new home, which would amount to a C$2.6 billion increase to the roughly 200,000 homes built in Canada each year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Katie Dmitrieva, Bloomberg
    Ms. Dmitrieva may be followed on Twitter @katiadmi

    Illinois Earns C- on its 2022 Infrastructure Report Card while Making Strides on Roads and Transit

    May 02, 2022 —
    Chicago, Ill. – The Illinois Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) today revealed its 2022 Infrastructure Report Card, giving the state an overall grade of C-. Illinois' civil engineers studied eleven infrastructure categories. Of those eleven, six categories are in mediocre condition, and five categories are in poor condition. The committee representing more than 2,700 civil engineers across Illinois collected and analyzed data and based its grades on eight criteria, including condition, funding, public safety and resilience. As a major hub for our nation's infrastructure, Illinois has taken considerable steps to improving its transportation and infrastructure networks and several major categories showed improvements – notably transit and roads. To view the report card and all eleven categories evaluated, visit https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/Illinois/. ABOUT THE ILLINOIS SECTION OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Civil engineering experts in their respective fields from the Illinois Section of ASCE, with assistance from the Central Illinois Section, Quad Cities Section, and the St. Louis Section, prepared The Report Card for Illinois' Infrastructure. The Report Card is created to educate and advise our elected officials and citizens on the condition of our State's infrastructure using sound engineering evaluation criteria and to provide recommendations on how to raise the grade. Since 1915, the Illinois Section has represented Civil Engineers in America's engineering hub and the organization recently celebrated its Centennial Anniversary. ASCE provides a platform for our members to mentor, learn and teach, which enables us to serve as stewards of infrastructure in our state, nation and throughout the world. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

    November 02, 2020 —
    The Hartford’s so-called virus exclusion in its commercial property forms is getting a workout, and policyholders now have an argument that may help their cases move past the pleadings stage. A U.S. District Court in Florida has deemed the exclusion ambiguous and denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss.1 The exclusion applies to “presence, growth, proliferation, spread, or any activity of ’fungi’, wet rot, dry rot, bacteria or virus.”2 The Court held that the parties did not necessarily intend to exclude a pandemic. In Urogynecology, the plaintiff sought coverage for the loss of the usefulness and functionality of its business location due to the Florida Governor’s shutdown order. The policy contained a 'fungi', wet rot, dry rot, bacteria, or virus” exclusion.3 The carrier moved to dismiss, and the plaintiff argued that the exclusion only applied if COVID-19 was present on-site, which was not the case. The Court addressed none of the issues regarding direct physical loss and instead decided the motion on the fungi exclusion. The Court held the exclusion ambiguous because the exclusion of virus “does not logically align with the grouping of the virus exclusion with other pollutants such that the Policy necessarily anticipated and intended to deny coverage for these kinds of business losses.”5 In addition, the Court stated that pollution case law was not on point because “none of the cases dealt with the unique circumstances of the effect COVID-19 has had on our society – a distinction this Court considers significant.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hugh D. Hughes, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at hdh@sdvlaw.com

    Trends in Project Delivery Methods in Construction

    April 03, 2023 —
    The three key measures of a construction project’s success are cost, quality, and time (delays). The project delivery method that the owner of the project selects can affect each of these metrics. Project delivery methods in complex construction projects evolve as technology and processes improve. The traditional methods of design-bid-build (DBB), design-build (DB), and construction management (CM) have been the standard for many years. More recently, however, newer methods such as integrated project delivery (IPD), and public-private partnerships (PPP) have gained traction. Design – Bid – Build (DBB) Design-bid-build is the oldest, most commonly used method of project delivery. It involves three distinct phases: design, bid/award, and construction. An owner asks a team of professionals, such as architects, engineers, and contractors, to produce design documents that will be used to solicit bids. After the owner evaluates the bids and chooses a contractor, a construction contract is written. While this method is the most familiar and well-understood, it can lead to disputes during the construction process as changes are made to the original plans. In DBB, the owner bears the risk for funding increased costs attributed to design changes and related delays – thanks to the Spearin Doctrine, which holds that the owner impliedly warrants the information, plans, and specifications that it provides to a general contractor. See 248 U.S. 132 (1918) Although the owner cannot claim against the contractor, it can make a claim against the design firm. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Ms. Biser may be contacted at sbiser@foxrothschild.com

    Hawaii Federal District Rejects Another Construction Defect Claim

    November 30, 2020 —
    The Federal District Court, District of Hawaii, continued it long line of cases finding no coverage for claims of faulty workmanship. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Summary Judgment RMB Enters., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200468 (D. Haw. Oct. 28, 2020). Property owners entered a construction contract with RMB Enterprises to develop and construct residential structures and a pond. The pond walls enclosed residential spaces, providing structural foundations for the walls of the building. After completion of the project, the pond leaked into its pump room. RMB performed remedial work by injecting epoxy into cracks. Later, water from the pondleaked into the interior of a residence near a staircase. Water also leaked into the master bedroom area causing musty odor, mood growth, and increased humidity. The owners sued RMB asserting breach of contract, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and negligence claims. Nautilus denied coverage. The policy provided that faulty workmanship did not constitute an "occurrence." But when faulty workmanship caused property damage to property other than "your work," then such property damage would be considered caused by an occurrence. 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

    A Recap of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Summer Slate

    September 16, 2019 —
    As usual, the last month of the Supreme Court’s term generated significant rulings on all manner of cases, possibly presaging the new directions the Court will be taking in administrative and regulatory law. Here’s a brief roundup: An Offshore Dispute, Resolve – Parker Drilling Management v. Newton On June 10, 2019, the Court held, in a unanimous ruling, that, under federal law, California wage and hour laws do not apply to offshore operations conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Newton, the plaintiff, worked on drilling platforms off the coast of California, and alleged that he was not paid for his “standby time” which is contrary to California law if not federal law. He filed a class action in state court, which was removed to federal court, where it was dismissed on the basis of a 1969 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that state law applies on the OCS only to the extent that it is necessary to use state law to fill a significant gap or void in federal law, and this is not the case here. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, that court disagreed with the Fifth Circuit, and ruled that state law is applicable on the OCS whenever it applies to the matter at hand. The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Thomas, conceded that “this is a close question of statutory interpretation,” but in the end the Court agreed with the argument that if there was not a gap to fill, that ended the dispute over which law applies on the Outer continental Shelf. This ruling, recognizing the preeminent role that federal law plays on the OCS, may affect the resolution of other offshore disputes affecting other federal statutes. Preemption Prevention – Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren. et al. On June 17, 2019 the Court decided important cases involving federal preemption and First Amendment issues. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Atomic Energy Act does not preempt a Virginia law that “flatly prohibits uranium mining in Virginia”—or more precisely—mining on non-federal land in Virginia. Virginia Uranium planned to mine raw uranium from a site near Coles, Virginia, but acknowledging that Virginia law forbade such an operation, challenged the state law on federal preemption grounds, arguing that the Atomic Energy Act, as implemented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, preempts the ability of the state to regulate this activity. However, the majority, in an opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, notes that the “best reading of the AEA does not require us to hold the state law before us preempted,” and that the1983 precedent that Virginia Uranium cites, Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, can easily be distinguished. Justice Gorsuch rejected arguments that the intent of the Virginia legislators in passing the state law should be consulted, that the Court’s ruling should normally be governed by the exact text of the statute at hand. However, both the concurring and dissenting opinions suggest that the what the legislators intended to do is important in a preemption context. 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

    Property Damage Caused By Construction Next Door Covered as Ensuing Loss

    July 16, 2014 —
    Damage to the insureds' property caused by construction undertaken on the adjacent lot was covered under the insureds' property policy. Chubb Indem. Ins Co. v. 21 E. Cedar, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79906 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2014). The insureds' home sustained damage contemporaneous with demolition, excavation, and construction taking place on a adjacent lot. Chubb paid benefits to the insureds for their loss, and then sought to recover as subrogee from the defendants who performed the construction. The defendants argued there was no coverage under Chubb's policy. Faulty planning, construction or maintenance were excluded. An exception to the exclusion stated, however, "we do insure ensuing covered loss unless another exclusion applies." Defendants argued characterizing the damages as ensuing losses was purely semantic and self-serving, designed to involve the ensuing loss provision in order to protect Chubb's coverage determination. Chubb contended the exclusion applied only to the specific property being insured and not to a neighbor's property where work is being performed. Therefore, the faulty construction exclusion did not apply and the ensuing loss provision was triggered. 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

    Real Estate Developer Convicted in $1.3 Billion Tax Case After Juror Removed

    October 17, 2023 —
    A real estate developer was convicted for promoting $1.3 billion in fraudulent tax deductions after a judge removed a deliberating juror who told the judge she was “standing up for White people.” Jack Fisher was found guilty Friday in Atlanta federal court of selling tax deductions to wealthy individuals using so-called syndicated conservation easements, which offer tax breaks for the promise to avoid developing land. Prosecutors said Fisher relied on exaggerated appraisals and backdated documents in the scheme, which earned him tens of millions of dollars. Jurors also convicted a lawyer who worked with Fisher, James Sinnott. Attorneys for Fisher and Sinnott didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The nine-week trial nearly came undone by conflicts over race and class within the jury, which began deliberating on Sept. 14. Last week, jurors told US District Judge Timothy Batten they were “hopelessly hung.” Jurors also complained that Juror 26, a White woman, refused to deliberate. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Voreacos, Bloomberg