BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code 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 Spending Drops in March

    Why Should Businesses Seek Legal Help Early On?

    Erector Tops Out 850-Foot-Tall Rainier Square Tower in Only 10 Months

    Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

    Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole

    Construction Mezzanine Financing

    A Third of U.S. Homebuyers Are Bidding Sight Unseen

    San Francisco Law Firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Hired New Partner

    Seven Proactive Steps to Avoid Construction Delay Disputes

    Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (3/6/24) – Steep Drop in Commercial Real Estate Investment, Autonomous Robots Being Developed for Construction Projects, and Treasury Department Proposes Regulation for Real Estate Professionals

    Insured's Failure to Challenge Trial Court's Application of Exclusion Makes Appeal Futile

    Insureds Survive Motion to Dismiss Civil Authority Claim

    CDC Issues Moratorium on Residential Evictions Through 2020

    Construction Down in Twin Cities Area

    How BIM Can Serve Building Owners

    Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

    First Circuit Rejects Insurer’s “Insupportable” Duty-to-Cooperate Defense in Arson Coverage Suit

    2021 Executive Insights: Leaders in Construction Law

    Keller Group Fires Two Executives in Suspected Australia Profits Reporting Fraud

    Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional Insured

    Court Dismisses Coverage Action In Lieu of Pending State Case

    Texas Supreme Court Declines to Waive Sovereign Immunity in Premises Defect Case

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2024 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    Ex-Detroit Demolition Official Sentenced for Taking Bribes

    New York Developer gets Reprieve in Leasehold Battle

    Texas LGI Homes Goes After First-Time Homeowners

    Is it the End of the Lease-Leaseback Shootouts? Maybe.

    Insured's Failure to Prove Entire Collapse of Building Leads to Dismissal

    COVID-19 Response: Key Legal Considerations for Event Cancellations

    Oregon Codifies Tall Wood Buildings

    Forget the Apple Watch. Apple’s Next Biggest Thing Isn’t for Sale

    Equal Access to Justice Act Fee Request Rejected in Flood Case

    Substantial Completion Explained: What Contractors & Owners Should Know

    California Limits Indemnification Obligations of Design Professionals

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2023 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    Drone Use On Construction Projects

    Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens

    Challenging a Termination for Default

    Update Coverage for Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    Counter the Rising Number of Occupational Fatalities in Construction

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 37 White And Williams Lawyers

    Examination of the Product Does Not Stop a Pennsylvania Court From Applying the Malfunction Theory

    Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors

    Even Where Fraud and Contract Mix, Be Careful With Timing

    Summary Judgment Granted to Insurer for Hurricane Damage

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Gets Construction Defect Bill to Committee

    Do We Need Blockchain in Construction?

    Anatomy of an Indemnity Provision
    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

    Giant Gas Pipeline Owner, Contractor in $900M Payment Battle

    January 22, 2024 —
    A Canadian partnership including energy developer TC Energy that is building the $10.6-billion Coastal GasLink pipeline, and a key project contractor, are disputing more than $900 million in project costs in court and in upcoming arbitration. The 670-kilometer line in British Columbia that announced mechanical completion last year is set to carry liquefied natural gas to the LNG Canada export terminal under construction on the province’s Pacific Coast—the country’s first such facility. Reprinted courtesy of David Godkin, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Panel Declares Colorado Construction Defect Laws Reason for Lack of Multifamily Developments

    January 22, 2014 —
    Dennis Huspeni writing for the Denver Business Journal provided reactions from panelists at a ULI Colorado event on January 9th at the Embassy Suites Denver – Downtown/Convention Center hotel regarding a report on “Emerging Trends in Real Estate.” According to Huspeni’s article, panelists discussed “the lack of for-sale multifamily development and attributed it to Colorado’s construction defect laws.” John Beeble, chairman and CEO of Saunders Construction, one of the panelists, said that Saunders does not build condos because of Denver’s construction defect laws: “We’ve been in business for 42 years and never been sued for construction defects,” Beeble said, according to the Denver Business Journal. “But the odds are close to 100 percent that we’d be in court defending ourselves if we did condos.” Jeff Hawks, principal at ARA Colorado, claimed, “Colorado has some of the worst construction defect laws in the country. It’s stupid to try and build a condo development until that changes,” as reported by the Denver Business Journal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    ASHRAE Seeks Comments by May 26 on Draft of Pathogen Mitigation Standard

    May 22, 2023 —
    ASHRAE, the professional group focused on research and standards development for heating, ventilation, air conditioning and air conditioning systems, is seeking comments on the first draft of a standard for pathogen mitigation, it announced May 15. ASHRAE will accept comments on the public review draft, via osr.ashrae.org, through May 26. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Leonard Fadeeff v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    September 21, 2020 —
    In Fadeeff v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 50 Cal.App.5th 94 (May 22, 2020), the California Court of Appeal reversed the entry of summary judgment in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) in connection with a smoke and soot damage claim made by Leonard and Patricia Fadeeff (the “Fadeeffs”) for damage sustained by their home due to the 2015 Valley Fire. The parties’ dispute arose out of the Valley Fire, which took place in Lake County, California. The Fadeeffs’ home was located in Hidden Valley Lake. The Fadeeffs submitted a claim to State Farm under their homeowners policy. Initially, after an adjuster inspected the home and noted that it was “well maintained” with no apparent maintenance issues, State Farm made a series of payments and arranged for ServPro to clean the smoke and soot damage. Subsequently, the Fadeeffs retained an independent adjuster and submitted a supplemental claim in the amount of $75,000. State Farm retained a different unlicensed adjuster to investigate the claim and retained expert, Forensic Analytical Consulting Services (FACS) to inspect the Fadeeffs’ home, and another company referred to as HVACi, to inspect the Fadeeffs’ HVAC system. The independent adjuster used to investigate the Fadeeffs’ supplemental claim failed to follow company guidelines in connection with using experts, which required specific questions to be addressed by the expert. In addition, FACS only took surface samples of the walls in the Fadeeffs’ home. Ultimately, the reports prepared by FACS and HVACi concluded that no additional work was required to remediate the damage sustained by the Fadeeffs’ home. Thereafter, State Farm denied the Fadeeffs’ supplemental claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

    PFAS and the Challenge of Cleaning Up “Forever”

    July 31, 2023 —
    From a stream of legal challenges, to ever-expanding regulations on things like cosmetics and drinking water, PFAS are the “forever chemicals” keeping companies and consumers on high alert. While industries scramble to remove the synthetic compounds from products, scientists are researching new techniques for scrubbing PFAS from the environment. There is money to be had for those who can find a more streamlined method of purging the substances—the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has an $800 million contract on the table for the handling, destruction and replacement of PFAS-laden fire-fighting foam—leaving technology companies racing to create solutions. The three main PFAS cleaning techniques currently relied upon can be very effective but are also costly and may leave questionable byproducts in their wake. The established approaches include:
    • Granular Activated Carbon. As one of the most studied treatments for PFAS removal, granular activated carbon is often used in water treatment plants. Large beds of carbon essentially soak up the unwanted chemicals. After the Sweeney Water Plant in North Carolina, whose water source is downstream from a fluorochemical-producing Chemours plant, was found to be contaminated with PFAS, the plant invested around $46 million into upgraded activated carbon systems. Once installed, these systems cost roughly $2.9 million to operate yearly, as the carbon needs to be replaced each time it reaches capacity. Though pricey, the plant says that the process now clears close to 100% of PFAS.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of PFAS Team, Pillsbury

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    September 01, 2011 —

    In Crossman Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co., No. 26909 (S.C. Aug. 22, 2011), insured Crossman was the developer and general contractor of several condominium projects constructed by Crossman’s subcontractors over multiple years. After completion, Crossman was sued by homeowners alleging negligent construction of exterior components resulting in moisture penetration property damage to non-defective components occurring during multiple years.  Crossman settled the underlying lawsuit and then filed suit against its CGL insurers to recover the settlement amount.  Crossman settled with all of the insurers except for Harleysville.  Crossman and Harleysville stipulated that the only coverage issue was whether there was an “occurrence.”  The trial court subsequently entered judgment in favor of Crossman, determining that there was an “occurrence.” The trial court also ruled that Harleysville was liable for the entire settlement amount without offset for the amounts paid by the other insurers.  

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

    Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay

    October 26, 2020 —
    When a contractor is challenging the assessment of liquidated damages, or arguing that it is entitled to extended general conditions, the contractor bears a burden of proof to establish there were excusable delays that impacted the critical path and, in certain scenarios, the delays were not concurrent with contractor-caused delay:
    When delays are excusable, a contractor is entitled to a time extension, such that the government may not assess liquidated damages for those delays. The government bears the initial burden of proving that the contractor failed to meet the contract completion date, and that the period of time for which the government assessed liquidated damages was correct. If the government makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the contractor to show that its failure to timely complete the work was excusable. To show an excusable delay, a contractor must show that the delay resulted from “unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor.” “In addition, the unforeseeable cause must delay the overall contract completion; i.e., it must affect the critical path of performance.” Further, the contractor must show that there was no concurrent delay.
    Ken Laster Co., ASBCA No. 61292, 2020 WL 5270322 (ASBCA 2020) (internal citations omitted). 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

    Edison Utility Accused of Igniting LA Fire in Lawsuits

    January 21, 2025 —
    Edison International Inc.’s southern California utility faces lawsuits blaming the energy provider’s equipment for igniting one of the wildfires still raging in the second-largest US metropolis. The first of several suits filed Monday was brought on behalf of a group of homeowners, renters, business owners and others with properties destroyed by the deadly Eaton Fire in the Pasadena area. The complaints allege that Southern California Edison power lines were the cause of the blaze that leveled the community of Altadena. The initial suits are expected to be followed by thousands more legal claims. Reprinted courtesy of Jef Feeley, Bloomberg, Mark Chediak, Bloomberg and Malathi Nayak, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of