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


    Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors

    Berger: FIGG Is Slow To Hand Over All Bridge Collapse Data

    Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

    The Best Lawyers in America© Peer Review Names Eight Newmeyer & Dillion Partners in Multiple Categories and Two Partners as Orange County’s Lawyers of the Year in Construction and Insurance Law

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    Flood-Threat Assessment Finds Danger Goes Far Beyond U.S. Homes

    Portions of Policyholder's Expert's Opinions Excluded

    $31.5M Settlement Reached in Contract Dispute between Judlau and the Illinois Tollway

    Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge

    First Lumber, Now Drywall as Canada-U.S. Trade Tensions Escalate

    Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute

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

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2024 “Atlanta 500” List

    Insurer Fails to Establish Prejudice Due to Late Notice

    Look Up And Look Out: Increased Antitrust Enforcement Of Horizontal No-Poach Agreements Signals Heightened Scrutiny Of Vertical Agreements May Be Next

    Small to Midsize Builders Making Profit on Overlooked Lots

    New York Considers Amendments to Construction Industry Wage Laws that Would Impose Significant Burden Upon Contractors

    Cable-Free Elevators Will Soar to New Heights, and Move Sideways

    Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure

    Randy Okland Honored as 2019 Intermountain Legacy Award Winner

    Designers George Yabu and Glenn Pushelberg Discuss One57’s Ultra-Luxury Park Hyatt

    Partners Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe Secure Seventh Circuit Win for Insurer Client in Late Notice Dispute

    Thinking About a Daubert Motion to Challenge an Expert Opinion?

    Developer's Novel Virus-killing Air Filter Ups Standard for Indoor Air Quality

    New Proposed Regulations Expand CFIUS Jurisdiction Regarding Real Estate

    Former Trump Atlantic City Casino Set for February Implosion

    Don’t Do this When it Comes to Construction Liens

    US Civil Rights Tools Are Failing the Most Polluted Black Communities

    Lewis Brisbois Listed on Leopard Solutions Top 10 Law Firm Index

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant

    Consider the Risks Associated with an Exculpatory Clause

    ASCE Statement on Hurricane Milton and Environmental Threats

    Reconstructing the Francis Scott Key Bridge Utilizing the Progressive Design-Build Method

    Value In Being Deemed “Statutory Employer” Under Workers Compensation Law

    Hunton Insurance Practice, Partners Recognized by The Legal 500

    Protect Workers From Falls: A Leading Cause of Death

    Making the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive, Part 2

    Homebuilder Predictions for Tallahassee

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals’ Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases

    When an Intentional Act Results in Injury or Damage, it is not an Accident within the Meaning of an Insurance Policy Even When the Insured did not Intend to Cause the Injury or Damage

    Partner Vik Nagpal is Recognized as a Top Lawyer of 2020

    Cybersecurity “Flash” Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

    Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

    5 Impressive Construction Projects in North Carolina

    Happy New Year from CDJ

    Buildings Don't Have To Be Bird-Killers

    Sometimes you Need to Consider the Coblentz Agreement

    South African Building Industry in Line for More State Support
    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

    DOE Abruptly Cancels $13B Cleanup Award to BWXT-Fluor Team

    February 01, 2021 —
    The U.S. Energy Dept. has cancelled a $13-billion, 10-year contract awarded just a few months ago to a team led by BWXT Technical Services and Fluor Federal Services to manage millions of gallons of radioactive waste stored underground at its Hanford, Wash., former weapons site—confirming plans for a major scope expansion and lengthy reprocurement but sharing few details. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, 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

    Duty to Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    April 15, 2014 —
    The Kansas Court of Appeals determined that the insurer must defend claims of negligent misrepresentation against its insured. Central Power Sys. & Servs. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 2014 Kan. App. LEXIS 9 (Kan. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2014). Central Power contracted to furnish Eagle Well with 10 oil-rig engines and 10 oil-rig transmissions. Eagle Well alleged that Central Power informed them that the engines and transmissions would be operational without any additional components. As is turned out, the engines could not operate without a wiring harness. Eagle Well had to hire a third party to make wiring harnesses that would meet their needs and to install the wiring harnesses. Eagle Wells sued Central Power, alleging damages in the form of lost profits for the time it took to make the engines independently operational. Further, damages were incurred due to money needed for the costs of purchasing the wiring harnesses from the third party and attaching the harnesses to the engines. Claims asserted against Central Power included breach of contract, negligence and negligent misrepresentation. 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

    Edgewater Plans to Sue Over Pollution During Veterans Field Rehab

    August 13, 2014 —
    In New Jersey, “Borough officials have announced plans to sue ‘all responsible parties’ over new contaminants inadvertently brought onto Veterans Field during soil remediation that was halted last year,” reported The Record. According to The Record, Waterside Construction “trucked in contaminated crushed concrete” and has “been in mediation for months” with the borough over the issue. “Waterside violated the sanctity of the public trust by improperly disposing of PCB waste materials at Veterans Field,” Timothy Corriston, special counsel to the borough, told The Record. “They believe that others are partly responsible. That is ultimately what will be litigated.” Spokesman Alan Marcus wrote in an email to The Record, “Waterside continues to be willing to participate in mediation and hopes to reach an amicable settlement among all of the parties.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    When Is Mandatory Arbitration Not Mandatory?

    August 19, 2015 —
    I have discussed my views on mandatory mediation in construction contracts at other places here at Musings and also discussed how the contract is king here in Virginia. A recent Charlottesville, Virginia Circuit Court case combined these two concepts to allow a subcontractor to proceed straight to litigation despite various ADR provisions in the contract between it and the general contractor. In ProBuild v. DPR & Continental Casualty, the Court looked at a series of ADR steps that were to be followed in the contract between the parties in order to allow DPR, the general contractor to require arbitration as opposed to litigation. The Court considered the surety’s motion to stay the litigation against it pending arbitration between ProBuild and DPR. In ProBuild, the Court looked at a contractual provision that provided certain steps to be followed in the event of a dispute, starting with a notice of dispute, followed by negotiation, followed by mediation should the disputing party request it, and in the event that mediation was tried and failed, the disputing party or general contractor could require arbitration. The Court determined that ProBuild, the subcontractor, was the disputing party under the contract, had pursued unsuccessful formal negotiations and that neither ProBuild nor DPR requested mediation. The Court then held that because unsuccessful mediation was a prerequisite to required arbitration and because mediation was never pursued, the mandatory arbitration clause did not apply. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Is the Sky Actually Falling (on Green Building)?

    November 03, 2016 —
    I have spoken on many occasions here at Construction Law Musings and elsewhere about the risks and rewards for contractors found in sustainable construction. The rewards were fairly apparent. New markets, government incentives and the desires of owners to be “green” clearly point toward a need for contractors to get into the sustainable building game. However, when I was first writing my Eeyore like thoughts most of the thoughts of all us construction attorneys were speculative. Whether because wholesale “green” construction was relatively new or because the court process was relatively slow, there were not many ways to test if our, shall we say “less optimistic,” predictions were going to come to pass. For better or worse, several of the more dire predictions have come true. One major green construction debacle is the Destiny USA litigation. I cannot possibly set out all of the various issues as well as my friend and colleague Chris Cheatham does in his e-book about the project and its aftermath. I highly recommend this e-book and the posts found at Chris’ Green Building Law Update blog for those of you interested in how the IRS, the USGBC and the Green Bonds Program interact to cause many a pitfall for construction and design professionals. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Summary Findings of the Fourth National Climate Assessment

    January 02, 2019 —
    On November 23, the latest National Climate Assessment, Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), was released by the U.S. Global Research Program, as required by the Clean Air Act. The Assessment, comprising three volumes and 1600 pages, contains some rather bleak findings which the Report usefully summarizes. Here’s a description of these findings. 1. Communities. The report states that “climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States.” In particular, “more frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events” will continue to damage infrastructure , ecosystems and social systems. However, “global action” to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce these risks. 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

    Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground

    January 22, 2014 —
    The city School Construction Authority (SCA) in Staten Island, New York, wants Ennead Architects to pay them $1.4 million to repair the playground at the Jerome Parker Educational Complex, according to Silive.com. Ennead Architects, based out of Manhattan, designed the William J. Clinton Presidential Center, and is currently working on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Education Center in Washington, D. C. In the suit, as reported by Silive.com, SCA alleges, “the pavement has progressively cracked, buckled, become uneven and created pools of standing water, all presenting a safety hazard.” Silive.com stated that “an Ennead spokeswoman did not immediately return a telephone call” when asked to comment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    September 30, 2011 —

    The Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.

    In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”

    Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.

    The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”

    The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”

    The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.

    Read the court’s decision…

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