BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield 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


    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (05/11/22)

    Failure to Allege Property Damage Within Policy Period Defeats Insured's Claim

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    With Wildfires at a Peak, “Firetech” Is Joining Smart City Lineups

    Obama Asks for $302 Billion to Fix Bridges and Potholes

    RDU Terminal 1: Going Green

    The New Jersey Theme Park Where Kids’ Backhoe Dreams Come True

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    New Jersey Law Firm Sued for Malpractice in Construction Defect Litigation

    On Rehearing, Fifth Circuit Finds Contractual-Liability Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Certificates Of Merit For NC Lawsuits Against Engineers And Architects? (Still No)(Law Note)

    California Supreme Court Confirms the Right to Repair Act as the Exclusive Remedy for Seeking Relief for Defects in New Residential Construction

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"

    Environmental Roundup – April 2019

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    Gordon & Rees Ranks #5 in Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    New York Appellate Court Restores Insurer’s Right to Seek Pro Rata Allocation of Settlements Between Insured and Uninsured Periods

    Mold Due to Construction Defects May Temporarily Close Fire Station

    Billionaire Row Condo Board Sues Developers Over 1,500 Building Defects

    Jury Trials: A COVID Update

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement

    Ruling Finds Builder and Owners at Fault in Construction Defect Case

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment

    Sold Signs Fill Builder Lots as U.S. Confidence Rises: Economy

    25 Days After Explosion, Another Utility Shuts Off Gas in Boston Area

    Can General Contractors Make Subcontractors Pay for OSHA Violations?

    Dust Obscures Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling on “Direct Physical Loss”

    Massive Danish Hospital Project Avoids Fire Protection Failures with Imerso Construction AI

    HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case

    Waiver of Subrogation and Lack of Contractual Privity Bars Commercial Tenants’ Claims

    We Knew Concrete Could Absorb Carbon—New Study Tells How Much

    Preventing Common Electrical Injuries on the Jobsite

    Luxury Home Sales are on the Rise

    Ambiguity in Insurance Policy will be Interpreted in Favor of Insurance Coverage

    NY State Appellate Court Holds That Pollution Exclusions Bar Duty to Defend Under Liability Policies for Claims Alleging Exposure to PFAS

    NEW DEFECT WARRANTY LAWS – Now Applicable to Condominiums and HOAs transitioning from Developer to Homeowner Control. Is Your Community Aware of its Rights Under the New Laws?

    Bill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law Book

    Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics

    Two New Developments in Sanatoga, Pennsylvania

    California Attempts to Tackle Housing Affordability Crisis

    Separation of Insureds Provision in CGL Policies

    Times Square Alteration Opened Up a Can of Worms

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Policyholder Can “Stack” the Limits of Each Primary Policy After Asbestos Claim

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?
    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

    Franchisors Should Consider Signing a Conditional Lease Assignment Rather Than a Franchisee’s Lease

    November 17, 2016 —
    In Franchise & High Properties, LLC v. Happy’s Franchise, LLC, a 2015 decision issued by the Court of Appeals in Michigan, the franchisor, Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, signed a five-year lease for the commercial space to be occupied by its franchisee, Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc. The franchisor did so to secure a right of first refusal to purchase the property and to enforce the franchise agreement to have the lease assigned to the franchisor if the franchisee defaulted. The issue in the case was whether the term “tenant” referred solely to Happy’s Pizza #19 or whether it also included Happy’s Franchise as a co-tenant. “Tenant” was defined as follows: “Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc., 29102 Telegraph Road, Suite 607, Southfield, MI 48034, the lessee, and Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as `Franchisor’), hereinafter designated as the Tenant.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Herold, Real Estate Litigation Blog
    Mr. Herold may be contacted at rherold@swlaw.com

    Attorneys’ Fees Are Available in Arizona Eviction Actions

    December 19, 2018 —
    The Arizona Court of Appeals recently held that any successful plaintiff in a forcible detainer action (i.e., an eviction action) may recover an award of its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred at trial under A.R.S. § 12-1178(A). See Bank of New York v. Dodev, 1 CA-CV 17-0652 (Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2018). Prior to this decision, caselaw held that fees were only awardable in actions arising out of the termination of a residential lease. RREEF Mgmt. Co. v. Camex Prods., Inc., 190 Ariz. 75, 945 P.2d 386 (Ct. App. 1997). Changes to the statute, however, rendered the prior caselaw obsolete. Although the holding in Dodev is important, the facts of the case are truly astonishing…and somewhat depressing. The Facts In Dodev, Ivaylo Dodev (Dodev) defaulted on his home loan in 2008. He nevertheless “succeeded in remaining on the [p]roperty by filing numerous legal actions that delayed the foreclosure and subsequent trustee’s sale” at least through the date of the opinion—a ten (10) year period. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

    Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

    February 07, 2018 —
    In California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County (1/26/2018 – No. G054981), the Fourth Appellate District considered whether vicarious disqualification of a law firm is mandatory or discretionary where an attorney with a conflict joins a firm and the firm enacts an ethical screen to prevent transmission of confidential information between the new attorney and the rest of the firm. This case arose from an effort by the California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund (the “Fund”) to be reimbursed for workers’ compensation benefits advanced on behalf of the Healthcare Industry Self-Insurance Program (the “Program”). The Fund hired Nixon Peabody LLP (“Nixon Peabody”) to represent it in connection with this matter. In November 2013, represented by members of Nixon Peabody’s San Francisco office, the Fund filed a lawsuit naming 304 members of the Program as defendants. Approximately 170 defendants have since settled. Two of the non-settling defendants (“Moving Parties”), were represented by Michelman & Robinson, LLP (“M&R”). From approximately 2009 until February 1, 2017, attorney Andrew Selesnick served as Chair of M&R’s Health Care Department at the firm’s Los Angeles office, managing a team of attorneys who represented clients in the healthcare industry. Commencing in 2014, a team of four attorneys at M&R, including Selesnick, represented the Moving Parties and four other defendants, the latter of whom have since settled. Selesnick was actively involved, including participating in a confidential discussion pertaining to Moving Parties’ liability and damages and receiving many e-mails containing communications about the common defense of the remaining 170 defendants. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown Bonesteel and Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown Bonesteel Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Treasures Inside Notre Dame Cathedral

    May 06, 2019 —
    Paris’s Notre Dame cathedral took more than 200 years to build and just a few hours to burn. The structure’s construction began in the 12th century; six hundred years later, it was rehabilitated by Napoleon in the 1800s. In the interim, kings were crowned underneath its monumental stained glass windows even as the city around it rose, fell, and rose again. It has served as the setting of numerous historical events, including Napoleon’s coronation in 1804. In August 1944, a special mass in the cathedral attended by General Charles de Gaulle was held to celebrate the liberation of Paris from the Nazis. The spire contained relics of Saint Denis and Saint Genevieve, the patron saints of Paris, according to Laurent Ferri, a curator in the Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections at Cornell University and former conservateur du patrimoine at the French National Archives. The archbishop of Paris placed the relics at the summit of the church in 1935 to protect the building. “They are now likely reduced to ashes,” Ferri says. Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg and Eugene Reznik, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard

    December 30, 2019 —
    In City of Oroville v. Superior Court, 446 P.3d 304 (Cal. 2019), the Supreme Court of California considered whether the City of Oroville (City) was liable to a dental practice for inverse condemnation damages associated with a sewer backup. The court held that in order to establish inverse condemnation against a public entity, a property owner must show that an inherent risk in the public improvement was a substantial cause of the damage. Since the dental practice did not have a code-required backwater valve — which would have prevented or minimized this loss — the court found that the city was not liable because the sewage system was not a substantial cause of the loss. This case establishes that a claim for inverse condemnation requires a showing of a substantial causal connection between the public improvement and the property damage. It also suggests that comparative negligence can be a defense to inverse condemnation claims. In December 2009, a dental practice, WGS Dental Complex (WGS), located in the City, incurred significant water damage as a result of untreated sewage from the City’s sewer main backing up into WGS’ building. WGS submitted a claim to its insurance carrier, The Dentists Insurance Company (TDIC) and, in addition, sued the City for its uninsured losses, alleging inverse condemnation and nuisance. TDIC joined the litigation, alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass and inverse condemnation. Under California law, when a government entity fails to recognize that an action or circumstance essentially amounts to a taking for public use, a property owner can pursue an inverse condemnation action for compensation. The City filed a cross-complaint against WGS for failing to install a code-required backwater valve on their lateral sewer line, which would have prevented or minimized the backup. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. WGS then sought a judicial determination on the issue of inverse condemnation. The City presented evidence that the sewage system was designed in accordance with industry standards, and that WGS failed to comply with the City’s plumbing code by failing to install a backwater valve on its private sewer lateral. The trial court found the City liable for inverse condemnation because the blockage that caused the backup originated in the City’s sewer line. The court held that the blockage was an inherent risk of sewer operation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the City would have had to prove that the WGS’s lack of a backwater valve was the sole cause of the loss in order to absolve itself of liability. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Based Upon Exclusion for Contractual Assumption of Liability

    August 06, 2019 —
    The Supreme Court for West Virginia determined the policy's contractual assumption exclusion barred coverage for the general contractor based upon claims of faulty workmanship. J.A. St & Assocs. v. Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp., 2019 W. Va. LEXIS 205 (May 1, 2019). J.A. Street & Associates, Inc. entered a contract with the developer, Thundering Herd Development, L.L.C., to build a commercial shopping center on seventy-eight acres of land. Street agreed to oversee the site preparation for the development and the construction of many of the buildings. Thundering Herd retained an engineering firm, S&ME, Inc. to do geotechnical exploration and to provide advice regarding land preparation for the shopping center. Thundering Heard also entered an agreement with the Target Corporation to construct a store on a pad to be prepared at the shopping center. Street hired subcontractors to prepare the site by grading the land and installing fill material. A slope was constructed at the rear of the proposed Target site, but it failed, causing a landslide, damage to the pad, and damage to adjacent property owned by a third party. Thundering Heard incurred $721,875 in additional costs to repair this slope, reconstruct the Target site, and compensate the neighbor for the damage to the adjacent property. 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

    Get Creative to Solve Your Construction Company's Staffing Challenges

    February 25, 2024 —
    Construction projects are on the rise due to a generational investment in infrastructure spending. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed by Congress in August 2021 includes around $550 billion in new federal investment in America’s roads and bridges, water infrastructure and more to be allocated over the next five years. Because of the influx of federal funds for infrastructure, construction firms that previously focused on local, private sector clients are incentivized to pursue public projects in other states and regions. There are a couple of bumps in the road, however. Payroll becomes more complex when you’re paying across multiple jurisdictions and at different pay rates, and reporting requirements for government work make managing projects and controlling costs trickier. Add to this the changes in the Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage rules which went into effect on October 23, 2023. To capture this business and make it worthwhile, construction professionals need technology built specifically for the industry. Reprinted courtesy of Kit Dickinson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Stuck in Seattle: The Aggravating Adventures of a Gigantic Tunnel Drill

    April 01, 2015 —
    About 20 workers wearing hard hats and reflective vests clump together on the edge of a chasm near Seattle’s waterfront, peering down a hole 120 feet deep and 83 feet wide. The last men have been craned out of the pit in a yellow metal cage. Gulls squawk. A TV news helicopter hovers overhead. A dozen journalists stand nearby on the bed of a truck. We’re here to see Bertha, one of the world’s biggest tunneling machines. Or at least a piece of her. A 240-foot crane is about to haul a 540,000-pound steel shield out of the ground, 20 months after Bertha started digging a highway. Almost imperceptibly, the crane starts rising. The event, on a Thursday in mid-March, is part of a massive rescue mission to fix the $80 million machine. She broke abruptly in December 2013 after boring through just 1,000 feet, one-ninth of her job. Her seals busted, and her teeth clogged with grit and pieces of an 8-inch steel pipe left over from old groundwater tests. She stopped entirely. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Karen Weise, Bloomberg
    Ms. Weise may be contacted at kweise@bloomberg.net