BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    Construction Contracts and The Uniform Commercial Code: When Does it Apply and Understanding the Pre-Dominant Factor Test

    Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent

    Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy

    Research Institute: A Shared Information Platform Reduces Construction Costs Considerably

    Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix

    Denver Airport's Renovator Uncovers Potential Snag

    Hawaii Building Codes to Stay in State Control

    Supreme Court of Washington State Upholds SFAA Position on Spearin Doctrine

    Doing Construction Lead Programs the Right Way

    Ohio Supreme Court Case to Decide Whether or Not to Expand Insurance Coverage Under GC’s CGL Insurance Policies

    AI-Powered Construction Optioneering Today

    Where Mechanic’s Liens and Contracts Collide

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

    City Potentially Liable for Cost Overrun on Not-to-Exceed Public Works Contract

    Settlement Reached on Troubled Harbor Bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas

    Michigan Claims Engineers’ Errors Prolonged Corrosion

    Wildfires Threaten to Make Home Insurance Unaffordable

    Former Zurich Executive to Head Willis North America Construction Insurance Group

    Ignoring Employee ADA Accommodation Requests Can Be Costly – A Cautionary Tale

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

    OH Supreme Court Rules Against General Contractor in Construction Defect Coverage Dispute

    N.J. Appellate Court Confirms that AIA Construction Contract Bars Insurer's Subrogation Claim

    California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision

    Things You Didn't Know About Your Homeowners Policy

    OSHA Launches Program to Combat Trenching Accidents

    What is the Implied Warranty of Habitability?

    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2024

    Mortgage Applications in U.S. Jump 11.6% as Refinancing Surges

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify

    Serving Notice of Nonpayment Under Miller Act

    Attempt to Overrule Trial Court's Order to Produce Underwriting Manual Fails

    Changing Course Midstream Did Not Work in River Dredging Project

    Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care

    When is a Contract not a Contract?

    When Employer’s Liability Coverage May Be Limited in New York

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tear Down This Wall!”

    Is Your Business Insured for the Coronavirus?

    Asbestos Confirmed After New York City Steam Pipe Blast

    Tax Increase Pumps $52 Billion Into California Construction

    Stay of Coverage Case Appropriate While Court Determines Arbitrability of Dispute

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (08/17/22) – Glass Ceilings, Floating Homes and the Inflation Reduction Act

    Executing Documents with Powers of Attorney and Confessions of Judgment in PA Just Got Easier

    Does Arbitration Apply to Contemporaneously Executed Contracts (When One of the Contracts Does Not Have an Arbitration Provision)?

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

    Defects in Texas High School Stadium Angers Residents

    Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Colorado Introduces Construction Defect Bill for Commuter Communities

    January 23, 2013 —
    A Colorado State Senator has introduced a bill suggesting a change to the way that construction defect claims are handled in "transit-oriented developments." And what are these? According to the bill these are "any multi-family residential or mixed-use project within one-half mile of any commuter rail stop, commuter light rail stop, or commuter bus stop." So the bill would treat homes with good public transportation differently from those not so convenient to public transportation. The bill, SB 52, would institute a right to repair for construction defects in these developments. Construction defect claims would be referred to binding arbitration. Further, construction professionals could not be sued for environmental conditions related to transit, commercial, public, or retail use. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tall Mass Timber Buildings Now Possible Under 2021 IBC Code Changes

    February 03, 2020 —
    The International Code Council (ICC) has approved 17 changes to the 2021 editions of the International Building Code (IBC) and International Fire Code, allowing for mass timber buildings up to 18 stories. With the addition of three new mass timber construction types (Type IV-A, IV-B, and IV-C), this is the first time in the history of the modern building code that significantly new construction types have been added to the code. Building Materials The primary building material that makes tall mass timber (TMT) buildings possible is cross-laminated timber (CLT). CLT is manufactured from dimension lumber (nominal 2x lumber) laid side-by-side or mass plywood panels of a specified width. Laminations of lumber are typically laid perpendicular to each other to form panels of various thicknesses that are bonded together using heat resistant adhesives that cure in large hydraulic presses. CLT commonly consists of an odd number of laminations. These solid wood panels can be anywhere from 6 inches to 20 inches nominal thickness and 60 feet long. Typical CLT panels will be 6 inches to 14 inches nominal thickness. The panels are fabricated off site, transported onto the construction site and assembled in a manner that is efficient and remarkably fast. CLT panels can be used as floor, wall, or roof building elements supported by glued-laminated beams and columns. Reprinted courtesy of Kenneth Bland, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    San Francisco International Airport Reaches New Heights in Sustainable Project Delivery

    November 21, 2022 —
    Ten years ago, Geoff Neumayr decided he was tired of “doing design and construction by combat.” San Francisco International Airport had completed a master plan for the complex and the front of the airport facilities doing things the traditional way. Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    March 22, 2018 —
    In Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., 2018 No. B270985, the California Court of Appeal examined and refined the Privette doctrine. Mr. Delgadillo worked as a supervisor/window cleaner for a company named Chamberlin Building Services (CBS). Television Center, Inc. (TCI) purchased an existing building and thereafter contracted with CM Cleaning Solutions, Inc. (CMC) to provide cleaning and janitorial services. CMC, on behalf of TCI, solicited a proposal from CBS to wash the building’s windows. CBS and its employees made all decisions about how the window washing would be accomplished. The window washing equipment used on the job was owned, inspected and maintained by CBS. In violation of CBS’ policy, Mr. Delgadillo, attached a safety line to a single connector which was not an acceptable anchor point. The bracket failed and Mr. Delgadillo fell 50 feet to his death. Survivors of Mr. Delgadillo filed suit against TCI for negligence and negligence per se, alleging that Mr. Delgadillo was fatally injured because TCI failed to install structural roof anchors, as required by several statutes. Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Absence of Property Damage During Policy Period Equates to No Coverage

    April 01, 2015 —
    The Montana Supreme Court determined there was no coverage for the insured due to a lack of property damage during the policy period. Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia, 2015 Mont. LEXIS 54 (Mont. Feb. 17, 2015). The insured plumbing company, Lolo Plumbing & Heating, installed a water heater at Famous Dave's restaurant. At the time of installation, the insured had a CGL policy with Truck. The policy provided coverage from July 10, 2006 to November 29, 2009. On March 12, 2010, three years after the water heater was installed, a burning smaell was detected in the restaurant's mechanical room. The fire department turned off the water heater and asked that a plumber look at it. Diamond Plumbing & Heating was called and replaced the combustion air fan assembly, but did not further examine the water heater. 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

    Aging-in-Place Features Becoming Essential for Many Home Buyers

    March 12, 2014 —
    With the rising number of Americans over the age of sixty-five, there is an “upswing” in demand of “aging-in-place home features,” according to Big Builder. Big Builder also noted seven accessible features that homebuyers identified when surveyed by The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). A couple of the features listed were “doorways at least three feet wide” and “non-slip floors.” The survey results were reported in What Home Buyers Really Want, released in May 2013 by the NAHB. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects

    October 14, 2013 —
    While many state Supreme Courts have determined that faulty construction work can be an occurrence under a standard commercial liability policy, the Alabama Supreme Court has taken the contrary view. Writing on the Kilpatrick Townsend blog, Carl A. Salisbury and Edmund M. Kneisel point out that the decision makes Alabama “an outlier,” and they ask, “how much longer will the outliers hold out?” They note that in the underlying construction defect case, “the arbitrator awarded $3 million in compensatory damages to the homeowners because of improperly installed flashing; improperly installed brick; the lack of weep holes in the brick; improperly installed doors and windows; improper construction of the upper porches; faulty construction of the roof; improper installation of a bathtub.” They summarize: “the house must have leaked like a colander.” When the insurer denied coverage, the contractor sued. The insurer argued that “the CGL policy form does not cover construction-related acts or omissions because such acts are not an insured ‘occurrence.’” Mr. Salisbury and Mr. Kneisel point out that “the Alabama Supreme Court agreed.” The problem they see is that “if there is no insurance for any intentional act, then insurance is simply a rip-off — it covers nothing.” They quote Justice Benjamin Cardozo to this effect: “To restrict insurance to cases where liability is incurred without fault of the insured would reduce indemnity to a shadow.” Their argument is that the Alabama decision was not the “correct position,” as exemplified by recent decisions from West Virginia, North Dakota, Connecticut and Georgia. The case “was a prime opportunity for the Alabama Supreme Court to leave the ranks of the outliers and join the majority view.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding

    February 27, 2019 —
    In Orange County Water District v. The Arnold Engineering Company (D070763), the Fourth Appellate District examined the criteria for evaluating the reasonableness of a parties’ denial of requests for admission (RFA’s) based upon their expert’s opinions and the proof required to recover costs for unreasonable denials. In Orange County Water District, the Orange County Water District (the District) sued several current and former owners and operators of industrial sites, including The Arnold Engineering Company (Arnold), to recover expenses associated with groundwater cleanup efforts intended to address groundwater contamination caused by volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) and other chemicals. Over six years, the parties conducted extensive discovery, including document productions, depositions, and soil sampling and monitoring. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of