BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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


    Affordable Housing should not be Filled with Defects

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects at Trump Towers

    SFAA Commends U.S. House for Passage of Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    Manhattan Site for Supertall Condo Finds New Owner at Auction

    Novation Agreements Under Federal Contracts

    Texas Federal Court Upholds Professional Services Exclusion to Preclude Duty to Defend

    GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

    California Committee Hosts a Hearing on Deadly Berkeley Balcony Collapse

    Home Buyer May Be Third Party Beneficiary of Property Policy

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (06/29/22)

    NEHRP Recommendations Likely To Improve Seismic Design

    CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?

    New Change Order Bill Becomes Law: RCW 39.04.360

    Nevada OSHA Provides Additional Requirements for Construction Employers to Address Feasibility of Social Distancing at Construction Sites

    Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense by U.S. News/Best Lawyers

    Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract

    Constructive Notice Established as Obstacle to Relation Back Doctrine

    OSHA Launches Program to Combat Trenching Accidents

    Judicial Panel Denies Nationwide Consolidation of COVID-19 Business Interruption Cases

    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    ASCE Statement on Passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2022

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael K. Kiernan and Associate Brandon Christian Obtain Dismissal with Prejudice in Favor of Defendant

    Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly

    Tech to Help Contractors Avoid Litigation

    Seattle Expands Bridge Bioswale Projects

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

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

    Bill Introduced to give Colorado Shortest Statute of Repose in U.S.

    A Look at Business and Professions Code Section 7031

    Housing Starts in U.S. Slumped More Than Forecast in March

    Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier

    Blue Gold: Critical Water for Critical Energy Materials

    Protecting and Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien when the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    Former Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor Disbarred for Taking Bribes

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

    Award Doubled in Retrial of New Jersey Elevator Injury Case

    A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster

    Can an Owner Preemptively Avoid a Mechanics Lien?

    Mortgage Battle Flares as U.K. Homebuying Loses Allure

    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance

    Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

    Administration Seeks To Build New FBI HQ on Current D.C. Site

    ‘Hallelujah,’ House Finally Approves $1T Infrastructure Funding Package

    Explore Legal Immigration Options for Construction Companies

    Data Is Critical for the Future of Construction

    Mortgage Interest Rates Increase on Newly Built Homes

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

    Deadlines. . . They’re Important. Project Owner Risks Losing Claim By Failing to Timely Identify “Doe” Defendant

    Courthouse Reporter Series: The Bizarre Case That Required a 117-Year-Old Expert
    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

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Increase 0.8% in November

    January 07, 2015 —
    Contracts to purchase previously owned homes rose in November as employment gains and low borrowing costs helped bring potential buyers into the market. The pending home sales index advanced 0.8 percent after a revised 1.2 percent decrease in October, the National Association of Realtors said today in Washington. The median projection in a Bloomberg survey of economists called for the index to rise 0.5 percent, with estimates ranging from a decline of 1.5 percent to an advance of 3.5 percent. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg
    Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net

    North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims

    January 04, 2023 —
    On December 16, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 2022 N.C. LEXIS 1122 (Dec. 16, 2022), in which it addressed coverage issues arising out of claims by individuals alleging injury from exposure to benzene contained in the insured’s products. Affirming in part and reversing in part the intermediate appellate court’s decision, the court held: (1) an “exposure trigger” applied; (2) defense and indemnity costs were subject to pro-rata allocation; and (3) vertical exhaustion applied to the duty to defend under certain umbrella policies. Two justices concurred in part and dissented in part. I. Background In Radiator Specialty, the insured (RSC) was named in hundreds of underlying suits arising from individual plaintiffs’ alleged exposure to benzene contained in its products. Between 1971 and 2012, RSC was insured under primary, umbrella and excess liability policies issued by various insurers. In 2013, RSC sued the insurers in North Carolina state court, seeking coverage for approximately $45 million in defense and indemnity costs incurred for the underlying claims. In 2016, the trial court decided motions for summary judgment on a number of coverage issues. Following a bench trial in 2018, the trial court entered final judgment, which required the insurers to reimburse $1.8 million of RSC’s past costs. The rulings were appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which issued a decision in 2020. In 2021, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted RSC’s and certain insurers’ petitions for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    New York Restaurant and Bar Fire Caused by Electric Defect

    February 04, 2014 —
    A fire at McGill’s Restaurant and Bar located in Schuyler, New York, resulted in “a total loss” according to the Little Fall Times. Schuyler Fire Chief Don Kane told the Little Fall Times, “no one was inside the building at the time of the fire, as the bar had closed at 2:30 a.m.” and the fire was reported at 3:52 a.m. Weather hindered the firefighters abilities to deal with the situation as “a small squall moved through the area.” An investigation concluded that an “electrical malfunction is to blame,” reported the Utica Observer-Dispatch. The Herkimer County Office of Emergency Services stated that the “fire was caused by an electrical defect within the base of the front wall.” The restaurant owner, who leased the building, “did not carry fire loss insurance for his business,” though the “building owner was insured,” according to the Utica Observer-Dispatch. Read the full story at The Little Falls Times... Read the full story at The Utica Observer-Dispatch... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

    February 10, 2020 —
    On November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register. Background As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency. In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective. 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

    Pensacola Bridge Halted Due to Alleged Construction Defects

    July 21, 2018 —
    The Pensacola News Journal reported that cracks were discovered again in the Pensacola Bay Bridge, which caused construction of said bridge to be halted once more: “Cracks found in a portion of the concrete in the Pensacola Bay Bridge project have twice halted construction in the last several months, raising concerns about oversight and disclosure from the state, particularly in light of the Miami bridge collapse earlier this year.” The Florida Department of Transportation stated “that the cracks were found during a routine visual inspection of newly placed concrete in March,” according to the Pensacola News Journal. The $400 million project began in 2017 and was scheduled to be completed by 2020. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    November 21, 2018 —
    Recent court decisions have signaled the courts’ proclivity to prefer arbitration over full-fledged litigation when provisions in construction contracts are called into question. While the courts recognize a party’s constitutional right to a jury trial, the courts also lean strongly towards resolving disputes via arbitration as a matter of public policy, especially if a construction contract carves out arbitration as an alternative to litigation. In Avr Davis Raleigh v. Triangle Constr. Co., 818 S.E.2d 184 (N.C. App. 2018), the North Carolina Appeals Court reviewed the issue of whether the contracting parties selected binding arbitration as an alternative to litigation. The contract at issue was an AIA A201-2007 form document. Under the terms of the contract, the parties elected to arbitrate claims under $500,000 but to litigate claims over this amount. However, if there were several claims under $500,000 but the aggregate of all claims exceeded $500,000, then the contract implied that all claims would be arbitrated. Since the claims involved were an amalgamation of the two, the contracting parties disagreed about whether the arbitration provision would apply. The plaintiff interpreted this provision to mean litigation was mandatory when at least one claim exceeded $500,000 and that arbitration was mandatory when no single claim exceeded this amount. In contrast, the defendant interpreted this provision as meaning that when there were several claims worth less than $500,000 individually, but more than $500,000 aggregately, then all claims must be arbitrated. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s interpretation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Plaza, White & Williams LLP

    Engineers Propose 'River' Alternative to Border Wall

    May 10, 2017 —
    Of all the ideas that have been suggested for the border wall, there is one that may help to bring together Mexico and the U.S., instead of pitting the countries against each another over illegal immigration. I’m part of a group of civil engineers in Massachusetts that has conceived of a program that is based on a recently acquired patent for an advanced concrete construction technology for building large-scale, monolithic concrete structures capable of physically partitioning two countries while serving to promote economic development. This fast and thrifty construction method and our proposed program prove that, as far as creativity is concerned, civil engineering isn’t dead yet. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frank K. Johnson, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Price Escalation Impacts

    August 22, 2022 —
    This Bulletin provides guidance to contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others to ensure compliance with contractual change order requirements in the event work on a construction project is impacted by price escalation. Construction projects are being impacted by increased costs for most construction materials. The Producer Price Index shows a 69% increase in the cost of construction materials from March 2020 to March 2022. Many construction contracts do not address escalation or specifically exclude change orders for material escalation, leaving the risk of escalation of construction materials with the contractor, subcontractor, or suppliers. Bid Protection Tips:
    • Keep bids open for less than 30 days with a designated sunset date:
      • Keeping your bids open for less than 30 days can help protect you from sudden changes in pricing and help maintain your bids’ competitive status.
      • If asked to extend time a bid is open, reconfirm prices before agreeing.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Denise Motta, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
    Ms. Motta may be contacted at dmotta@grsm.com