BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut 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


    Michigan Lawmakers Pass $4.7B Infrastructure Spending Bill

    Putting for a Cure: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    Apartment Projects Fuel 13% Jump in U.S. Housing Starts

    The Power of Planning: Four Key Themes for Mitigating Risk in Construction

    Texas EIFS Case May Have Future Implications for Construction Defects

    Denver Condo Development Increasing, with Caution

    Fraud and Construction Contracts- Like Oil and Water?

    You Cannot Arbitrate Claims Not Covered By The Arbitration Agreement

    As of July 1, 2024, California Will Require Most Employers to Have a Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and Training. Is Your Company Compliant?

    Massachusetts Federal Court Rejects Adria Towers, Finds Construction Defects Not an “Occurrence”

    Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 2 – Procedural Due Process

    Washington High Court Holds Insurers Bound by Representations in Agent’s Certificates of Insurance

    COVID-19 Impacts on Subcontractor Default Insurance and Ripple Effects

    Reminder: Know Your Contractor Licensing Rules

    Party Cannot Skirt Out of the Very Fraud It Perpetrates

    Thank You to Virginia Super Lawyers

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    Reservation of Rights Letter Merely Citing Policy Provisions Inadequate

    No Coverage for Alleged Misrepresentation Claim

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

    Economic Damages and the Right to Repair Act: You Can’t Have it Both Ways

    The Status of OSHA’s Impending Heat Stress Standard

    Defining a Property Management Agreement

    Taking Advantage of New Tax Credits and Prevailing Wage Bonuses Under the Inflation Reduction Act for Clean Energy Construction Projects

    Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

    Sweat the Small Stuff – Don’t Overlook These Three (3) Clauses When Negotiating Your Construction Contract

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Title Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    A Win for Policyholders: California Court of Appeals Applies Vertical Exhaustion for Continuous Injury Claims

    Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

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

    The Construction Lawyer as Counselor

    Subcontractor Sued for Alleged Defective Work

    Vaccine Mandate Confusion Continues – CMS Vaccine Mandate Restored in Some (But Not All) US States

    Are Construction Defect Laws a Factor in Millennials Home Buying Decisions?

    BHA at the 10th Annual Construction Law Institute, Orlando

    The Ups and Downs of Elevator Maintenance Contractor's Policy Limits

    Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix

    U.S. Construction Spending Rose in 2017 by Least in Six Years

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    CGL Insurer’s Duty To Defend Broader Than Duty To Indemnify And Based On Allegations In Underlying Complaint

    Contractors Set to Implement Air Quality Upgrades for Healthier Buildings

    Amendments to California Insurance Code to Require Enhanced Claims Handling Requirements for Claims Arising Out Of Catastrophic Events

    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    SEC Proposes Rule Requiring Public Firms to Report Climate Risks

    Precedent-Setting ‘Green’ Apartments in Kansas City

    Insured's Claim for Water Damage Dismissed with Leave to Amend

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    The Five-Step Protocol to Reopening a Business

    Zombie Foreclosures Plaguing Various Cities in the U.S.
    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

    Insurer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Construction Defect Claim Rejected

    January 22, 2024 —
    The magistrate judge recommended that the insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied in a case involving coverage for the insured subcontractor's alleged faulty workmanship. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Sonny Glasbrenner, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190019 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2023). Cone & Graham (C&G), the general contractor, subcontracted with Sonny Glasbrenner, Inc. (SGI) to work on the project. The project involved the rehabilitation of a bridge due to deterioration of the existing concrete bridge deck by adding additional cross bracing to further stiffen the steel girders and using special lightweight concrete. C&G contracted SGH to demolish the existing concrete bridge deck. SGI completed the work. Thereafter, C&G made a demand to SGI for alleged damaged caused by SGI's work. C&G alleged that SGI was negligent in performing the demolition work, causing substantial damage to the existing bridge girders. C&G sued SGI. 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

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    May 26, 2011 —

    A three-judge panel issued a per curium ruling on May 23 in Fairview Heights Condo. v. Investors (N.J. Super., 2011), a case which the members of a condominium board argued: “that the judge erred by: 1) dismissing plaintiff’s claims against RLI based upon the statute of repose; 2) dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Luppinos based upon a lack of expert opinion; 3) barring the testimony of Gonzalez; and 4) barring the May 23, 1989 job site report.” The court rejected all claims from the condominium board.

    The court found that the building must be unsafe for the statute of repose to apply. They noted, “the judge made no findings on whether the water seepage, or the property damage caused by such seepage, in any way rendered the building, or any of the units, unsafe.” Further, “without a specific finding on the question of whether the defects had rendered the building ‘unsafe,’ defendants were not entitled to the benefit of the ten-year statute of repose.“

    On the second point, the court also upheld the lower court’s findings regarding the management company:

    “The report submitted by Berman establishes that the EIFS product was defective in its design and would therefore have failed from the outset. The defects in that product were, according to Berman, not prone to repair or other mitigation. Therefore, even if defendants did not appropriately inspect or repair the EIFS, their failure to do so would have had no impact on the long-term performance of the EIFS exterior cladding. As plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on these questions, the judge properly granted summary judgment to the Luppinos on plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.”

    On the final two points, the judges noted “plaintiff maintains that the judge committed reversible error when he excluded the Gonzalez certification and the 1989 job site report prepared by Raymond Brzuchalski.” They saw “no abuse of discretion related to the exclusion of the Gonzalez certification, and reject plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary.” Of the job site report, they found, “no abuse of discretion in the judge's finding that the Brzuchalski 1989 job site report did not satisfy the requirements of N.J.R.E.803(c)(6).”

    Read the court’s decision

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

    Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses What It Means to “Reside” in Property for Purposes of Coverage

    July 16, 2023 —
    In Dardar v. Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n, 2023 IL App ( 5th ) 220357-U, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals addressed an insured’s suit against her property insurer after the carrier denied coverage for a fire loss. The property in question was inherited by the Plaintiff from her brother and was in the process of being renovated at the time of the fire loss. After the fire, the Plaintiff’s homeowners carrier denied the claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not occupying the property at the time of the fire and was therefore not covered under the terms of the policy. It was undisputed that the Plaintiffs never lived in or physically occupied the home. Correspondingly, the carrier denied the claim on the basis that the policy only covered the Plaintiff’s "residence premises," which was defined as: (1) the one-family dwelling where you reside; (2) the two, three, or four-family dwelling where you reside in at least one of the units; or (3) that part of any other building in which you reside. The carrier determined that the Plaintiff did not “reside” at the property and therefore were not covered under the policy terms. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    Minnesota Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade for the Second Time

    May 02, 2022 —
    SAINT PAUL, Mn. — The Minnesota Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) today released preliminary findings from the 2022 Report Card for Minnesota's Infrastructure, with 10 categories of infrastructure receiving an overall grade of a 'C', meaning Minnesota's infrastructure is in mediocre condition. Minnesota has taken steps to make its infrastructure network more sustainable to withstand increasingly severe weather, but additional steps must be taken as the state's infrastructure is aging. Funding has been limited for systems throughout the state, particularly for surface transportation networks, and local and state funding must be increased to bring these critical systems up to speed. Civil engineers graded aviation (B), bridges (C), dams (C), drinking water (C-), energy (C), parks (B-), ports (C-), roads (D+), transit (C-) and wastewater (C). "The ASCE report card serves as an important benchmark for where our infrastructure currently stands and lays out how we can make improvements," said Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul. "Knowing that these systems play such a crucial role in economic progress and the safety of Minnesotan families, we have made infrastructure a topline issue and must continue to do so to secure a prosperous future here in Minnesota." ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Understanding Entitlement to Delays and Proper Support

    December 10, 2024 —
    In a previous post, we discussed delays on construction projects including (1) critical versus non-critical delays, (2) excusable versus non-excusable delays, and (3) compensable versus non-compensable delays. We also reviewed the common methods of delay analysis include (1) the Total Cost Method, (2) the Modified Total Cost Approach, and (3) the Measured Mile Method. Once you have determined the type of delay and the method to be used to analyze and quantify the delay, it is important to understand the type of documents/evidence needed to support your claim for delay. If a party determines that they are entitled to some type of recovery for the delay, the party making a claim for delay, such as a contractor, must have the proper documentation/evidence to assist in proving entitlement for damages from the delay. Without the proper back-up, contractors are generally unable to recover all of the additional costs and expenses associated with the delays or, at best, recover only an “equitable” amount. Generally, damages must be proved with reasonable certainty and may not be based on speculation or conjecture. Thus, it is crucial for a party asserting a delay to have the proper documentation to support a delay claim, if the goal is to recover the damages associated with the delay. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
    Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com

    Want More Transit (and Federal Funding)? Build Housing That Supports It

    January 08, 2024 —
    After decades of planning (and $2.1 billion spent), Los Angeles’ newest light rail line opened in October 2022. Joined by geeky rail obsessives and chaperoned children, I rode the K Line on opening day. A blend of underground, elevated and at-grade track, it’s a route only a politician could love. Stations were lavished with public art, and when the train wasn’t stuck in traffic, it glided through the sprawl. Yet one year later, it is Los Angeles’ least-used line, averaging just over 2,000 riders on an average weekday this fall. It isn’t hard to see why: The line begins at a vacant patch in Crenshaw and ends in a low-slung industrial park about six miles away, lined by strip malls the entire way. Walk one block east or west from any given station, and you’ll find yourself amid single-story postwar bungalows on 7,500-square-foot lots — all illegal to redevelop into apartments, thanks to local zoning. The Hyde Park Station deposits riders into a cluster of gas stations and drive-thru fast-food joints. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of M. Nolan Gray, Bloomberg

    The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

    March 19, 2015 —
    Candice B. Macario of Gordon & Rees LLP analyzed the case Delon Hampton & Associates, Chartered v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, and stated that “[i]n his case, a design professional successfully challenged a construction defect lawsuit brought against them, on the basis that the defect complained of was open and obvious and the County had ran out of time to bring their action.” Macario recommended “as lawsuits are filed close to the ten year statute of repose, one area to explore in a single issue case is if you can eliminate a cause of action based on patent defects. Moreover, in multi-issue cases for several construction defects, parties should always be aware of analyzing whether issues can be identified as patent and perhaps used as a tool in negotiations, settlement discussions or pre-trial motions.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Withdrawal Liability? Read your CBA

    July 10, 2018 —
    Withdrawal liability is a huge issue facing unionized employers. According to Bloomberg, 93% of the Top 200 largest pension plans are underfunded by a combined $382 billion. Contractors that withdraw from a multi-employer pension plan can face hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in assessed withdrawal liability. However, employers may be able to avoid that liability, plus the legal and consulting fees to fight it, by simply reading their collective bargaining agreement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com