BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architect
    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


    Condo Board Goes after Insurer for Construction Defect Settlement

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2021 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

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

    Subcontractor Sued for Alleged Defective Work

    NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    NAHB Speaks Out Against the Clean Water Act Expansion

    That’s Common Knowledge! Failure to Designate an Expert Witness in a Professional Negligence Case is Not Fatal Where “Common Knowledge” Exception Applies

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    A Few Things You Might Consider Doing Instead of Binging on Netflix

    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

    The Starter Apartment Is Nearly Extinct in San Francisco and New York

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

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No “Property Damage” Where Defective Component Failed to Cause Damage to Other Non-Defective Components

    2019 Legislative Session

    BHA’s Next MCLE Seminar in San Diego on July 25th

    Blackstone to Buy Cosmopolitan Resort for $1.73 Billion

    4 Breakthrough Panama Canal Engineering Innovations

    Resulting Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Bert Hummel Appointed Vice Chair of State Bar of Georgia Bench & Bar Committee

    Construction Activity on the Upswing

    Changes to Judicial Selection in Mexico Create a New Case for Contractual ADR Provisions

    Viva La France! 2024 Summer Olympics Construction Features Sustainable Design, Including, Simply Not Building at All

    Court Addresses Damages Under Homeowners Insurance Policy

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Recognized Among The Top 50 Construction Law FirmsTM of 2023 by Construction Executive

    Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels

    How Mansions Can Intensify Wildfires

    Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively

    DIR Public Works Registration System Down, Public Works Contractors Not to be Penalized

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    Collapse of Breezeway Attached to Building Covered

    Insured Cannot Sue to Challenge Binding Appraisal Decision

    No Prejudicial Error in Refusing to Give Jury Instruction on Predominant Cause

    Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Calls for CFPB Investigation into Tenant Screening Businesses

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Coverage for Post-Completion Defects

    Certified Question Asks Hawaii Supreme Court to Determine Coverage for Allegations of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    Singer Akon’s Multibillion-Dollar Futuristic City in Africa Gets Final Notice

    Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 Not Just for Individual Homeowners Anymore?

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

    How Construction Contracts are Made. Hint: It’s a Bit Like Making Sausage

    He's the Top U.S. Mortgage Salesman. His Daughter Isn't Buying It

    A DC Office Building Offers a Lesson in Glass and Sculpture

    West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar Announced for 2014

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion on Business Risk Exclusions Fails

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act Of 2020: What You Need to Know

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim
    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

    Ritzy NYC Tower Developer Says Residents’ Lawsuit ‘Ill-Advised’

    January 17, 2022 —
    The developers of a Manhattan skyscraper that has become one of New York City’s toniest residences said the condo board is trying to squeeze money out of them with a lawsuit that claims bogus design flaws. The board is seeking $250 million from builders of the 1,396-foot residential tower at 432 Park Avenue that opened in 2015 on the so-called Billionaire’s Row. Their suit alleges the company that developers CIM Group and Macklowe Properties formed to build the structure failed to take into account its unusual height, leading to flooding, noise, vibrations and elevators that are prone to malfunctions. In a response to the suit filed Wednesday, the company called the building “a treasure” and the suit was “ill-advised.” While the structure needed to be “fine-tuned” when residents started to move in, the board stopped the builders from accessing the facilities and finishing the job “while manufacturing an ever-increasing list of demands,” most of which were not required, according to court filings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg

    California Assembly Bill Proposes an End to Ten Year Statute of Repose

    May 09, 2011 —

    California Assemblyman Furutani has introduced a bill that if passed would eliminate the ten year statute of repose in certain construction defect cases. The statute of repose would not apply when “an action in tort to recover damages for damage to real or personal property, or for personal injury or wrongful death from exposure to hazardous or toxic materials, pollution, hazardous waste, or associates environmental remediation activities,” according to the latest amended version of AB 1207.

    When Furutani first introduced the bill, it was aimed at small businesses only. However, the description of the bill, which read, “An act to amend Section 14010 of the Corporations Code, relating to small businesses” has been stricken from the bill, and it has been amended to read, “An act to amend Section 337.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil actions.”

    The change in the bill’s intent has caused some outcry among attorneys in the blogosphere. For instance, Sean Sherlock of Snell & Wilmer stated that “the proposed amendment is unnecessary, and would upset nearly 50 years of deliberative legislation and judicial precedent on construction defects liability and the 10–year statute — all apparently motivated by a decision in a single, isolated Superior Court lawsuit that has not yet been reviewed by the court of appeal.” Sherlock is referring to Acosta v. Shell Oil Company, in which the Superior Court agreed to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against the developer based in part on the ten year statute of repose. AB 1207 was amended five days after the ruling in Acosta v. Shell Oil Company.

    California AB 1207 has been re-referred to the Judiciary Committee.

    Read the full story…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Depreciating Labor Costs May be Factor in Actual Cash Value

    April 20, 2016 —
    The Minnesota Supreme Court considered a certified question from the the U.S. District Court regarding consideration of depreciating labor costs in determining the actual cash value of a loss. Wilcox v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2016 Min. LEXIS 50 (Minn. Feb. 10, 2016). The insureds' home was damaged by hail. State Farm provided a written estimate that calculated the actual cash value of the loss. To estimate the actual cash value of the damaged property, State Farm first calculated the replacement costs of individual items, such as roof flashing, siding, fascia, gutters, and window screens. Next, State Farm subtracted the pre-loss depreciation of some, but not all, individual items. For example, State Farm depreciated the cost of removing and replacing certain materials, such as siding. State Farm did not depreciate the cost of the new siding separately from the cost of the labor required to install the new siding on the home. Instead, State Farm calculated the removal and replacement of the siding as a single cost, then depreciated the removal-and-replacement cost as a whole. The cost of labor to repair or replace the damaged property was referred to by the court as "embedded labor costs." 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

    The Cost of Overlooking Jury Fees

    February 07, 2022 —
    On January 21, 2022, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two (Los Angeles), certified for publication a 2-1 decision that serves as an important reminder to California attorneys to post jury fees in a timely manner and to use appropriate channels and consult with appellate counsel in seeking appellate relief from contested rulings. In TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Nathaniel Fonnegra, (B303300, Jan. 21, 2022), a construction defect dispute, the trial court set a jury trial at defendant’s request. However, on the day trial was set, defendant waived jury trial. Plaintiff objected and made an oral request for jury trial. The trial court denied the request finding that plaintiff waived its right to a jury trial by failing to timely post jury fees. The matter proceeded to a bench trial, and the court ruled in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed, having failed to seek a writ of mandate, which the appellate court noted “is the proper remedy to secure a jury trial allegedly wrongfully withheld.” Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas B. Brummel, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Brummel may be contacted at nbrummel@hbblaw.com Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    August 31, 2020 —
    In an unusual flurry of occupational safety related activity, the Virginia courts decided two cases in the last week relating to either the review of occupational safety regulations themselves or their enforcement. In Nat’l College of Business & Technology Inc. v. Davenport (.pdf), the Virginia Court of Appeals considered what constitutes a “serious” violation of the exposure to asbestos Virginia Occupational Safety & Health (VOSH) regulations. The facts found by the Salem, Virginia Circuit Court were that employees of the petitioner college were exposed to asbestos insulation when they were required to enter a boiler room to retrieve paper files. However, no evidence was presented regarding the length of time or level of exposure at the Circuit Court level. Despite the lack of evidence regarding the level or extent of exposure, the Circuit Court upheld the VOSH citation for exposure and the level of violation at a “serious” level with the attendant penalty. The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed with the second finding. The appellate court determined that the lack of evidence regarding the level of exposure (whether length or extent) made the serious level violation an error. The Court stated that merely presenting evidence that asbestos is a carcinogen is not enough given the number of carcinogenic materials in existence and then remanded the case back to Circuit Court to reconsider the penalty level. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

    August 30, 2017 —
    On August 9th, in Sirrah Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Wunderlich, the Arizona Supreme Court settled the question about recovery of attorneys’ fees after prevailing on implied warranty claims against a residential contractor. The simple answer is, yes, a homeowner who prevails on the merits can recover the fees they spent to prove that shoddy construction breached the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. Why? Because, as Justice Timmer articulated, “[t]he implied warranty is a contract term.” Although implied, the warranty is legally part of the written agreement in which “a residential builder warrants that its work is performed in a workmanlike manner and that the structure is habitable.” In other words, a claim based on the implied warranty not only arises out of the contract, the claim is actually based on a contract term. Since, in A.R.S. § 12-341.01, Arizona law provides for prevailing parties to recover their fees on claims “arising out of contract” and because the implied warranty is now viewed by the courts as a contract term, homeowners can recover their fees after successfully proving breach of the implied warranty. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rick Erickson, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr Erickson may be contacted at rerickson@swlaw.com

    Lawmakers Strike Deal on New $38B WRDA

    January 09, 2023 —
    Key Senate and House leaders have reached a bipartisan agreement on a new Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) that would authorize more than $37 billion in federal funds for 25 new and five modified Army Corps of Engineers flood and hurricane protection, harbor dredging and other civil works projects across the U.S. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Jet Crash Blamed on Runway Construction Defect

    December 11, 2013 —
    The Old Republic Insurance Company is suing Macon, Georgia, claiming that the runway was improperly built, leading to the crash of the corporate jet of one of their clients. The insurer paid out $1 million to the owner of the jet. Now it seeks to recover that from the city, claiming the runway was both too short and built in a manner that caused rainwater to pool. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of