BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness construction
    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


    Courthouse Reporter Series: Two Recent Cases Address Copyright Protection for Architectural Works

    Hospital Inspection to Include Check for Construction Defects

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    The Choice Is Yours – Or Is It? Anti-Choice-of-Laws Statutes Applicable to Construction Contracts

    Hybrid Contracts for The Sale of Goods and Services and the Predominant Factor Test

    Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field

    Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    Hawaii Supreme Court Says Aloha to Insurers Trying to Recoup Defense Costs From Policyholders

    Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert

    Employees Versus Independent Contractors

    Environmental Roundup – May 2019

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    Connecticut Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So

    AAA Revises Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    At Long Last, the Colorado Legislature Gets Serious About Construction Defect Reform – In a Constructive Way

    Ex-Turner Exec Gets 46 Months for Bloomberg Construction Bribes

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

    Arizona – New Discovery Rules

    Renee Zellweger Selling Connecticut Country Home

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    Former UN General Assembly President Charged in Bribe Scheme

    Turner Construction Selected for Anaheim Convention Center Expansion Project

    San Diego County Considering Updates to Green Building Code

    Three Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2024 NY Metro Super Lawyers Lists

    I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

    Corps Releases Final Report on $29B Texas Gulf Coast Hurricane Defense Plan

    Seeking Better Peer Reviews After the FIU Bridge Collapse

    Pine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime Mortgages

    'Regluing' Oregon State's Showcase for Mass Timber

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

    NTSB Faults Maintenance, Inspection Oversight for Fern Hollow Bridge Collapse

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Thanks to All for the 2024 Super Lawyers Nod!

    Housing Woes Worse in L.A. Than New York, San Francisco

    Self-Storage Magnates Cash In on the Surge in Real Estate

    Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market

    Mutual Or Concurrent Delay Caused By Subcontractors

    Anatomy of an Indemnity Provision

    Surety’s Several Liability Under Bonds

    Eleven WSHB Lawyers Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    Florida Supreme Court Decision Limits Special Damages Presented to Juries

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    Using the Prevention Doctrine

    Why Insurers and Their Attorneys Need to Pay Close Attention to Their Discovery Burden in Washington

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce?”

    Ninth Circuit Finds Policy’s Definition of “Policy Period” Fatal to Insurer’s “Related Claims” Argument

    Congratulations to Karen Baytosh and August Hotchkin on Their Recognition as 2021 Nevada Legal Elites!

    Risk Transfer: The Souffle of Construction Litigation
    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

    Arizona Court Affirms Homeowners’ Association’s Right to Sue Over Construction Defects

    October 15, 2024 —
    In Gallery Community Association v. K. Hovnanian at Gallery LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0375, 2024 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 696 (Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Arizona (Court of Appeals) discussed whether a homeowners’ association can file an action for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability arising from construction defects. At issue was whether the implied warranty extended to the areas within the community that the association maintained, including the common areas. The Court of Appeals held that homeowners’ associations can sue builder-vendors for breach of the implied warranty arising from construction defects. In this case, a homeowners’ association, responsible for managing and maintaining a community of townhomes, sued the developer/builder for alleged construction defects in the common area and exteriors of homes that the association maintained for the homeowners in the community. The alleged defects included the pool cabana and staircase walls in the common areas and the exterior walls, roofs, and staircases on the separately owned townhomes in the community. The builder filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the implied warranty extended to dwelling actions initiated by homeowners – not homeowners’ associations – and that the alleged construction defects at issue were not related to a dwelling. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals determined that both common law and statutory law authorized the homeowners’ association’s breach of implied warranty claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams
    Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

    When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Cannot Assert Contribution Claims Against the Insured

    July 15, 2019 —
    In Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. of Mason County v. Stove Builder Int’l, 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 46993 (E.D. Ky.), the United States District Court for the Northern Division of the Eastern District of Kentucky, by adopting a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendations, see Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stove Builder, Int’l, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48103 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 11, 2019), considered whether to allow the defendants to file a third-party complaint against the plaintiff’s insureds-subrogors. Finding that the defendants could not pursue contribution claims against the plaintiff’s insureds-subrogors, the court denied the defendant’s motion to file a third-party complaint. The underlying subrogation action involved allegations of strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty against a pellet heater manufacturer and the retailer who sold the heater. The claims arose from a fire allegedly originating from the heater, which spread to the insureds-subrogors’ home causing property damage, along with consequential damages. Pursuant to the applicable insurance policy, the insureds-subrogors’ insurer issued payments to its insureds-subrogors. Thereafter, the insurer filed suit against the heater manufacturer and retailer. The defendants filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against the plaintiff’s insureds-subrogors, seeking to assert a contribution claim. The defendants alleged that the insureds-subrogors failed to properly install and maintain the pellet heater. The defendants also sought a jury instruction that would permit the jury to apportion fault to the insureds-subrogors, resulting in a reduction of the plaintiff’s recovery. The court looked to federal procedural law, but Kentucky substantive law to decide the defendants’ motion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams
    Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

    Occurrence Definition Trends Analyzed

    August 27, 2014 —
    In The Legal Intelligencer, Gordon S. Woodward, partner at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, analyzed the changing definition of occurrence in the insurance industry, and more specifically in Pennsylvania. Woodward begins by going over “the traditional view of occurrence as it relates to coverage for faulty products or defective work,” in which “the existence of a defect in a product or an event in which a defective product injures only itself does not constitute an occurrence.” However, he stated that “there is a growing trend in favor of finding that an occurrence can include the circumstance where defective work results in damage only to the work or product itself (so long as the damage was neither intended nor expected by the insured).” Woodward also explained Pennsylvania developments and legislative changes (such as a South Carolina statute). These changes need to be monitored, Woodward stated, “as they have the potential to dramatically alter the coverage landscape from one jurisdiction to the next.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Renters ‘Sold Out’ by NYC Pensions Press Mayor on Housing

    May 19, 2014 —
    Elevators break down, ceilings leak and security is lax at the Metro North apartments overlooking the East River in Harlem, says retired rehabilitation technician Bob Montesi, who’s lived there for more than three decades. Even as deterioration accelerates at the 761-unit complex, which used to be in a state affordable-housing program, some tenants are facing rent increases of as much as 80 percent. For Montesi, 74, who worked at a New York City-run hospital for 41 years, the changes are especially galling. One of the owners of the building is his pension fund. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Martin Z. Braun, Bloomberg
    Mr. Braun may be contacted at mbraun6@bloomberg.net

    2018 Super Bowl US. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis

    February 07, 2018 —
    After the collapse of the Viking’s previous stadium due to snow in 2010, it was clear that a new facility was needed to endure the Minnesota weather. The new U.S. Bank Stadium was built to withstand the harshest of weather conditions while also saving energy according to Marlene Cimons’ article “Cutting-Edge Design on Display at Super Bowl LII” featured on Nexus Media website. The stadium’s roof melts snow quickly by deflecting sunlight and because of its sharp pitch the snow slides easily into a big gutter. The roof also lets in sunlight which saves electricity and creates the feeling of being outdoors. Solar heating is used to recirculate warm air from above down to spectators below. “It is also the first NFL stadium to be built with LED lighting, which uses 75 percent less electricity than metal halide lighting typically deployed in stadiums.” The stadium is dedicated to becoming a zero-waste facility and currently saves water by using low-flow faucets. Sport and Sustainability chairman Allen Hershkowitz said of the stadium, “as one of the most visible sporting events in the world, the Super Bowl has a unique opportunity to promote environmental literacy and reduce cultural polarization related to climate change.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Standard For Evaluating Delay – Directly from An Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeal’s Opinion

    October 04, 2021 —
    Sometimes, it is much better to hear it from the horse’s mouth. That is the case here. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeal’s (ASBCA) opinion in Appeals of -GSC Construction, Inc., ASBCA No. 59402, 2020 WL 8148687 (ASBCA November 4, 2020) includes an informative discussion of a contractor’s burden when it encounters excusable delay and, of importance, the standard for evaluating delay. It’s a long discussion but one that parties in construction need to know, appreciate, and understand. EVERY WORD IN THIS DISCUSSION MATTERS. Construction projects get delayed and with a delay comes money because time is money. Many claims are predicated on delay. These can be an owner assessing liquidated damages due to a delayed job or a contractor seeking its costs for delay. Either way, the standard for evaluating delay and the burdens imposed on a party cannot be understated and, certainly, cannot be overlooked. For this reason, here is the discussion on evaluating delay directly from the horse’s mouth in the Appeal of-GSC Construction, Inc.:
    The critical path is the longest path in the schedule on which any delay or disruption would cause a day-for-day delay to the project itself; those activities must be performed as they are scheduled and timely in order for the project to finish on time. Wilner v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 241, 245 (1991). In Yates-Desbuild Joint Venture, CBCA No. 3350 et al., 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,870, our sister board compiled an excellent and very helpful synopsis of the standards for evaluating delay claims, which I adopt nearly verbatim among the discussion that follows.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Where Underlying Claim is Strictly Breach of Contract

    June 30, 2016 —
    Considering certified questions from the federal district court, the Arkansas Supreme Court followed a prior decision in deciding there was no coverage for property loss caused by faulty workmanship based solely on breach of contract. Columbia Ins. Group, Inc. v. Cenark Project Mgt. Services, Inc., 2016 Ark. LEXIS 185 (Ark. April 28, 2016). The homeowners entered a contract in 2005 with Arkansas Infrastructure, Inc. (AII) to construct pads for the construction of six homes. The contract provided that AII would perform the work in accordance with the plans, specifications, and drawings developed by CENARK Project Management Services, Inc. In 2012, the homeowners sued AII for breach of contract, alleging that AII had failed to construct the pads in accordance with the plans and specifications designed by CENARK. 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

    New York Preserves Subrogation Rights

    September 06, 2023 —
    The insurer’s right of subrogation is equitable in nature, even if not based in contract. However, since the insurer steps into the shoes of its insured and is limited to the rights of its insured, an integral part of the investigation process is determining what rights the insured has. Whether or not the insured can settle with the tortfeasor and that whether the settlement would also apply to the subrogated carrier is a question the Supreme Court of New York, a trial court, recently addressed. In Utica First Ins. Co. v. Homeport I LLC, et al., No. 150448/2022, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), the plaintiff insurance carrier’s insured, SI Waterfront Management Inc. (SI Waterfront), owned and operated a restaurant called Wynwood at 24 Navy Pier Court in Staten Island, New York. The owner of the property was Homeport I LLC (Homeport). Significant construction work pertaining to plumbing and draining lines at the property was done by Ironstate Holdings, LLC (Ironstate), the plumbing portion of which was conducted by subcontractor Claire Construction Corp. (Claire). As a result of the construction work, on June 8, 2021, SI Waterfront allegedly sustained property damage from flooding. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com