BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    The Construction Lawyer as Counselor

    DIR Reminds Public Works Contractors to Renew Registrations Before January 1, 2016 to Avoid Hefty Penalty

    Blueprint for Change: How the Construction Industry Should Respond to the FTC’s Ban on Noncompetes

    Construction Executives Should Be Dusting Off Employee Handbooks

    From ‘Cuckoo’s Egg’ to Today’s Cyber Threat Landscape

    Insurance Alert: Insurer Delay Extends Time to Repair or Replace Damaged Property

    Hunton Insurance Recovery Partner Michael Levine Quoted on Why Courts Must Consider the Science of COVID-19

    Retired Judge Claims Asbestos in Courthouse gave him Cancer

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part II

    ASCE Statement on Biden Administration Permitting Action Plan

    US Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Chicago Cubs Stadium Renovation

    Home-Building Climate Warms in U.S. as Weather Funk Lifts

    Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment

    Will Future Megacities Be a Marvel or a Mess? Look at New Delhi

    China Construction Bank Sued in US Over Reinsurance Fraud Losses

    Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue

    The Job is Substantially Complete, the Subcontract was Never Signed, the Subcontractor Wants to be Paid—Now What?

    Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 4: Coverage for Supply Chain Related Losses

    In Real Life the Bad Guy Sometimes Gets Away: Adding Judgment Debtors to a Judgment

    Quick Note: Remember to Timely Foreclose Lien Against Lien Transfer Bond

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    Wisconsin Court Applies the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Negligence Claims for Purely Economic Losses

    A Murder in Honduras Reveals the Dark Side of Clean Energy

    Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void

    Home-Sales Fall in 2014 Has U.S. Waiting for 2015: Economy

    Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner

    Court of Appeals Upholds Default Judgment: Serves as Reminder to Respond to Lawsuits in a Timely Manner

    London Shard Developer Wins Approval for Tower Nearby

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

    A Networked World of Buildings

    Judicial Economy Disfavors Enforcement of Mandatory Forum Selection Clause

    AB5, Dynamex, the ABC Standard, and their Effects on the Construction Industry

    Blackstone to Buy Cosmopolitan Resort for $1.73 Billion

    If You Don’t Like the PPP Now, Wait a Few Minutes…Major Changes to PPP Loan Program as Congress Passes Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    Amazon Urged to Review Emergency Plans in Wake of Deadly Tornado

    California Contractors – You Should Know That Section 7141.5 May Be Your Golden Ticket

    No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim Only Impacting Insured's Work

    Congratulations to Jonathan Kaplan on his Promotion to Partner!

    Brazil Builder Bondholders Burned by Bribery Allegations

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    Housing Starts in U.S. Beat 1 Million Pace for Second Month

    New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

    California Supreme Court Rules Developers can be Required to Include Affordable Housing

    Nonresidential Construction Employment Expands in August, Says ABC

    One-Upmanship by Contractors In Prevailing Wage Decision Leads to a Bad Result for All . . . Perhaps

    Residential Contractors, Be Sure to Have these Clauses in Your Contracts

    Mitsubishi Estate to Rebuild Apartments After Defects Found

    Court Dismisses Coverage Action In Lieu of Pending State Case
    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

    University of California Earthquake Report Provides List of Old Concrete Buildings in LA

    January 22, 2014 —
    According to a list provided to the city of Los Angeles by the University of California, there are “about 1,500 old concrete buildings that are potentially at risk of collapse during an earthquake,” the Los Angeles Times reported. The list can help the city identify “concrete buildings most likely to fail in an earthquake.” The report, however, “does not amount to a list of dangerous buildings,” the university scientists told the Los Angeles Times. It is a list of concrete buildings built before 1980. Some of the “buildings are vulnerable, others are not.” Concrete buildings pose a potentially dangerous threat, reported the Los Angeles Times: “After the Northridge earthquake caused two concrete buildings to collapse and severely damaged others, structural engineers warned that the collapse of a single concrete building ‘has the potential for more loss of life than any other catastrophe in California’ since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.” Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles Mayor, has asked Lucy Jones, a U.S. Geological Survey seismologist, to act as his science advisor on earthquake issues. Garcetti has asked Jones “to come up with recommendations by the end of the year on retrofitting issues, including how to get privately owned concrete buildings retrofitted.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Avoid Drowning in Data: Keep Afloat with ESI in Construction Litigation

    May 15, 2023 —
    Maybe it is another lawyer on your team, a client, the Court. Maybe it is you. Almost every lawyer has heard (or thought, felt, or anguished over) the following: Wait — What? Discovery is going to cost how much? The concern is real. Per a 2019 Southern District of New York opinion:
    1. The average case can involve collection, review and production of 100 gigabytes of data (or 6.5 million pages of Word documents).
    2. At a typical rate of review of 40-60 documents per hour, assuming 100,000 documents are collected, that is about 2,000 hours of attorney review time.
    3. Adding in fees for forensic collection, storage, and processing to maintain metadata can result in a bill totaling $500,000.
    Brown v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 3d 637, 645 & n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). What's counsel to do? The following four points can help counsel streamline and reduce costs in discovery: (1) know your case, (2) know your data — understand it and document collection, (3) cooperate with counsel, and (4) implement a protocol for electronically-stored information ("ESI"). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steve Swart, Williams Mullen
    Mr. Swart may be contacted at sswart@williamsmullen.com

    The Moving Finish Line: Statutes of Limitation and Repose Are Not Always What They Seem

    June 01, 2020 —
    Having an end date for risk is important to construction professionals who need to know when they can close their books and destroy files relating to old projects. While professionals typically look to the statute of limitations and repose, these deadlines can sometimes be harder to determine than one might think. State Laws Prohibiting Alteration of Statutes of Limitation Many contractors seek to control the extent of their risk by negotiating the length of their liability period. In some instances, contractors may seek to shorten the statute of limitations to protect against stale claims. While in other instances, owners periodically negotiate for longer periods to ensure that they will not be time barred from pursuing valid claims. While the majority of states enforce such contractual provision, a number of states hold such clauses unenforceable. In these instances, the state’s original statute of limitations will apply regardless of what the contract says. Reprinted courtesy of Kenneth E. Rubinstein & Nathan Fennessy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Rubenstein may be contacted at krubinstein@preti.com Mr. Fennessy may be contacted at nfennessy@Preti.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Specification Challenge; Excusable Delay; Type I Differing Site Condition; Superior Knowledge

    January 02, 2024 —
    An Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals dispute, Appeal of L.S. Black-Loeffel Civil Constructors JV, ASBCA No. 62402, 2023 WL 5827241 (ASBCA 2023), involved which party bore liability for delay—the federal government or the prime contractor–based on various legal theories. Without detailing the factual details, a number of interesting legal issues were raised in this dispute including (1) a defective specification challenge, (2) excusable delay, (3) Type I differing site condition, and (4) superior knowledge. These legal issues are discussed below. 1. Specification Challenge (Defective Specifications) The contractor claimed that the government’s specifications were defective in regard to a thermal control plan. The government countered that the specifications were not design specifications but performance specifications. The specifications were performance based because they did not tell the contractor how to achieve the performance-based criteria. 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

    Insurer Must Defend Contractor Against Claims of Faulty Workmanship

    May 30, 2018 —
    The magistrate judge recommended that the insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to determine there was no coverage for claims of faulty workmanship be denied. Greystone Multi-Family Builders v. Gemini Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56770 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2018). TPG (Post Oak) purchased an OCIP policy to cover construction of an apartment complex. TPG was sued by the contractor, Greystone, after TPG cancelled the construction contract. TPG filed a counterclaim against the contractor, alleging that Greystone had failed to properly perform in building a luxury apartment complex which resulted in monetary damages to TPG. The complaint further alleged that the project was nine months behind its substantial completion date, far from complete, and over budget when TPG cancelled the contract. The cost to fix the mismanagement caused by Greystone was $18.9 million. 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

    2018 Update to EPA’s “Superfund Task Force Report”

    September 04, 2018 —
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released its Superfund Task Force Recommendations 2018 Update (the Update). The Superfund Task Force was established by former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to “provide recommendations on an expedited timeframe on how the agency can restructure the cleanup process, realign incentives of all involved parties to promote expeditious remediation, reduce the burden on cooperating parties, incentivize parties to remediate sites, encourage private investment in cleanups of sites and promote the revitalization of properties across the country.” Over the years, thousands of sites have been listed on EPA’s National Priority List (NPL) of Superfund sites, but the process by which listed sites are cleaned up and finally removed from the NPL has been agonizingly slow. The process is governed by the National Contingency Plan rules. The Update states that, as of July 3, 2018, there are 1,346 sites listed on the NPL, and overall, 399 sites have been removed from the NPL. 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

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    March 19, 2014 —
    In North Counties Engineering v. State Farm (No. A133713, filed 3/13/14), State Farm insured an engineering company under CGL insurance that had a professional services exclusion and included products-completed operations (PCO) coverage. The owner of the engineering company, NCE, contracted with a winery to construct a dam and associated works. Also on the project was the owner's son, who had his own construction company, NCD. There were multiple contracts, both oral and written, variously naming one company or the other. The evidence later showed that the father performed hands-on work for the project. After completion, the winery was sued over sediment and erosion caused by the dam. State Farm denied coverage on the ground that the professional services exclusion applied, as well as a mistaken belief that the policy had no PCO coverage. State Farm then changed its position and agreed to defend, but only going forward. The insured sued State Farm over past defense fees, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The case went to trial and after testimony detailing State Farm's claim handling, the trial judge granted a nonsuit, finding that the professional services exclusion barred all coverage: "[I]f you look at the pleadings, the legal pleadings and the contracts, the NCE role is, as the engineering company, the support company, and that company was overseeing the [sic] NCD to make sure that whatever they did was done right.... NCE is the expert on the job, the professional providing professional services, design and construction, and also overseeing the work of NCD, the son’s business, which is doing more of the physical activity.... That takes professional expertise and I think all of what Mr. Akerstrom did was professional.... It was this professional work, and not 'something incidental to their professional involvement' that gave rise to the underlying actions. In this situation, it’s not a malpractice or E and O policy. It’s a business policy, which has good benefits, but is subject to the professional services exclusion." Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    April 17, 2019 —
    The Fifth Circuit ruled that settlements between an insured and its subcontractors qualified as “other insurance” to the extent those settlements were used to pay for damages covered by an excess insurance policy. Policyholders should note the outcome of this case as it demonstrates the significant impact that settlements can have on coverage. Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc. v. Amerisure Mutual Ins. Co.1 was the result of a construction project gone wrong. Zapata County, Texas hired Satterfield & Pontikes (“S&P”) as a general contractor for the construction of a courthouse building. When the project did not go as planned, Zapata County terminated S&P, hired new subcontractors to complete the project, and sued S&P. S&P, in turn, sought indemnification from its subcontractors, who were contractually obligated to indemnify S&P and procure insurance for any damage the subcontractors caused at the project. S&P also sought coverage from its own primary insurers, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (“AGLIC”) and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (“Amerisure”), and its excess insurer, U.S. Fire Insurance Company (“U.S. Fire”) who provided liability coverage for S&P’s potential liabilities at the project. The policies contained exclusions for losses arising from mold and did not provide coverage for attorney’s fees or similar legal costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com