BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield 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


    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

    Watch Your Step – Playing Golf on an Outdoor Course Necessarily Encompasses Risk of Encountering Irregularities in the Ground Surface

    Stop Losing Proposal Competitions

    Illinois Supreme Court Rules Labor Costs Not Depreciated to Determine Actual Cash Value

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Super Lawyers in 2016

    Thank You!

    Ways of Evaluating Property Damage Claims in Various Contexts

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    More (and Simpler) Options Under New Oregon Retention Law

    Spencer Mayer Receives Miami-Dade Bar Association's '40 Under 40' Award

    LEEDigation: A Different Take

    Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense

    Floating Cities May Be One Answer to Rising Sea Levels

    When is Forum Selection in a Construction Contract Enforceable?

    Gloria Gaynor Sues Contractor over Defective Deck Construction

    Morrison Bridge Allegedly Crumbling

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

    Building a Case: Document Management for Construction Litigation

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Las Vegas Team on Obtaining Summary Judgment for the Firm’s Landowner Client!

    Arbitration—No Opportunity for Appeal

    What is a Personal Injury?

    For US Cities in Infrastructure Need, Grant Writers Wanted

    Large Canada Employers and Jobsites Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines

    Waiver of Subrogation Enforced, Denying Insurers Recovery Against Additional Insured in $500 Million Off-Shore Oil Rig Loss

    A Look at Business and Professions Code Section 7031

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    2025 Construction Law Update

    After Fatal House Explosion, Colorado Seeks New Pipeline Regulations

    New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

    Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Does Not Allege Property Damage, Barring Coverage

    Another Reason to Always Respond (or Hensel Phelps Wins One!)

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

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052 Dies in Committee

    Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    CDJ’s #2 Topic of the Year: Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 Tex. LEXIS 39 (Tex. Jan.17, 2014)

    Increasing Use of Construction Job Cameras

    Construction May Begin with Documents, but It Shouldn’t End That Way

    Fewer NYC Construction Deaths as Safety Law Awaits Governor's Signature

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Business Interruption Claim Denied

    ACEC Research Institute Releases New Engineering Industry Forecast

    PSA: Virginia DOLI Amends COVID Workplace Standard

    ARUP, Rethinking Green Infrastructure

    Commonwealth Court Holds That Award of Attorney's Fees and Penalties is Mandatory Under the Procurement Code Upon a Finding of Bad Faith

    CGL Policy Covering Attorney’s Fees in Property Damage Claims

    Bar Against Forum Selection Clauses in Construction Contracts Extended to Design Professionals

    Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures

    Vincent Alexander Named to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite

    Review the Terms and Conditions of Purchase Orders- They Could be Important!

    Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions: Courts May Not Consider Tenant’s Hardship
    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

    Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

    January 24, 2018 —
    Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, a court may permit a party to withdraw an admission made in response to a request for admission upon noticed motion. The court may only do so, however, “if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(b). The court may also “impose conditions on the granting of the motion that are just, including, but not limited to . . . (2) An order that the costs of any additional discovery be borne in whole or in part by the party withdrawing or amending the admission.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(c). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

    Harmon Towers Demolition Still Uncertain

    January 23, 2013 —
    It would be a "gift" to MGM Resorts if they were able to tear down the Harmon Tower, according to an article in the New York Times, as analysts are cited that a hotel would "struggle during this economic downturn." Further, William Robinson, a professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, noted that "MGM has tried to cut back on the whole project," adding that "if you are a conspiracy theorist, you thin they are just looking for a way to get out of it." Professor Robinson thinks they would be unlikely to rebuild if allowed to tear down the building. MGM Resorts has a different take on the matter. Alan M. Feldman, MGM's senior vice president for public affairs, told the New York Times that MGM "had a contract with Perini that we would pay them to give us a certain kind of building type — in this case a luxury hotel." Mr. Feldman contends that Perini had not "kept up their part of the bargain." Perini has stated that the fault was due to the designers and did not comment to the Times. The claims of design and construction defects have left the building unfinished, with only twenty-six of the planned forty-nine floors constructed. Perini contends the building can still be repaired. MGM that its remediation plan is "to take the building down." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Jersey Law Firm Sued for Malpractice in Construction Defect Litigation

    July 23, 2014 —
    Berman Sauter Record & Jardim PC are facing a New Jersey state legal malpractice suit. According to Law 360, condominium associations claimed the law firm “didn't properly name subcontractors as defendants in the associations' complaint over various construction defects, thus blocking them from obtaining damages despite a $1.2 million settlement.” Law 360 reported that the “suit seeks compensatory damages, with interest and costs; reimbursement of attorneys' fees and litigation costs and expenses for both the instant and underlying complaints; and further relief.” The law firm is no longer active, according to Law 360. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Modern Tools Are Key to Future-Proofing the Construction Industry

    September 19, 2022 —
    The U.S. construction industry is facing a tech revolution that’s upending the roles of skilled workers. Many traditional contractors are struggling to embrace the new technologies customers increasingly demand, while the industry struggles to attract young professionals. According to the latest American Community Survey data, the median age of a construction worker is 41. This is particularly concerning given the confluence of two trends: the construction industry is facing a critical workforce shortage that’s only expected to intensify, and the workforce is aging—NCCER is predicting around 40% are expected to retire by 2031. Industry leaders must prioritize using the latest industry solutions and innovations to modernize construction work, transform the construction industry and appeal to the next generation of contractors. Throughout COVID-19, the construction sector experienced a higher number of workers quitting jobs as opposed to being laid off, indicating the older workforce likely took the opportunity to retire early, along with more than three million other Americans who did the same. Currently, industry leaders are not doing enough to communicate opportunities to help shift the career perception of electrical contractors from simply being “blue collar” and un-exciting. A 2019 National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) found only 3% of people ages 18 to 25 were interested in pursuing a construction career, with most respondents noting the desire for a less physically demanding job. Reprinted courtesy of Guillaume Le Gouic, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    July 22, 2011 —

    On July 13, 2011, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the US District Court issued a rule in the case of Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of Am. v. Univ. Facilities, Inc. (E.D. La., 2011). In this case, Stanley Smith Drywall was contracted by Capstone Building Corporation to “perform undisclosed work at the facility believed to involve the installation of drywall.” The project involved the design and construction of student residences for the Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, Louisiana. In May, 2009, University Facilities, Inc. (UFI) sued Capstone Development Corporation and Capstone On-Campus Management.

    State Farm insured Stanley Smith Drywall and they sought a declaration that they have no duty: “(1) to insure Stanley Smith or CBC, or (2) to defend or indemnify any party against UFI's claims in the pending arbitration.” State Farm contends “(1) there is no "occurrence" to trigger coverage under the policy; (2) only breach of contract claims are asserted; (3) there is no property damage alleged; and (4) various coverage limitations and exclusions apply to prevent coverage.’

    The court concluded that “whether State Farm has a duty to defend in the arbitration must be determined by considering the claims asserted in the arbitration.” However, the arbitration claims were not made part of the record. There, “, the Court cannot determine as a matter of law State Farm's duty to defend on the present record.” The same was true of State Farm’s duty to indemnify. “Stanley Smith and CBC assert that State Farm's motion for summary judgment was filed before any discovery was conducted in the arbitration proceeding or in this case. The Court finds that State Farm has failed to develop the record sufficiently to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to its duty to indemnify Stanley Smith or CBC in the arbitration.’

    The court denied State Farm’s motion for a summary judgment on its duty to defend and indemnify.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    What Counts as Adequate Opportunity to Cure?

    June 13, 2022 —
    qimono @ PixabayHere at Musings, we like to discuss (likely more than readers would like) the fact that in Virginia, the contract is king and its terms will be looked at carefully by the courts. One of those provisions that will be looked at carefully is the so-called “cure period.” The “cure period” is the time that a subcontractor has to fix any non-compliant construction after receiving notice of any deviation from the contract documents that must be fixed. In United States ex rel Allan Myers VA, Inc. v. Ocean Construction Services, Inc. the federal court for the Eastern District of Virginia examined what it means to grant a proper opportunity to cure. The Ocean Construction Services case arises from a contractual dispute between Allan Myers VA Inc. and Ocean Construction Services Inc., or OCS, involving renovation work performed in sections of Arlington National Cemetery. Presently before the court is Myers’ motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts demonstrate that it was not provided with a three-day cure period, a contractual prerequisite to OCS terminating the subcontract for default. 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

    Seattle’s Audacious Aquarium Throws Builders Swerves, Curves, Twists and Turns

    January 08, 2024 —
    Patrick Nation describes the reinforcing steel for the main tank of the 50,000-sq-ft Seattle Aquarium Ocean Pavilion as a “monster” job for CMC Rebar. In his mind, it was like bending 496 tons of bars “on a golf ball.” In reality, the operation was more like weaving a giant steel basket. Ironworkers had to painstakingly hand-thread the reinforcing steel for the doubly curved and slanted concrete walls of the 350,000-gallon saltwater exhibit—one bar at a time—to create the dense latticework for the 41-ft-tall basket. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2020

    January 11, 2021 —
    COVID-19 business interruption coverage litigation may have stolen the show in 2020, but those cases should not eclipse other important insurance coverage cases decided throughout this past year. As the courts nationwide struggled with the insurance coverage implications of COVID-19 related business loss, other significant coverage decisions were overshadowed. Read on to learn about how computer glitches, biometric privacy, and a falling wheelbarrow have all played a role in\ shaping some of the most interesting and influential insurance coverage decisions of 2020, as well as get a sneak peek at the key coverage decisions looming in 2021. Enjoy! 1. Nash Street, LLC v. Main Street America Assurance Company, No. 20389, 2020 WL 5415325 (Conn. 2020) Do exclusions k(5) and k(6) absolve an insurer of its duty to defend its insured for allegations of faulty workmanship? Reprinted courtesy of Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C., Andrew G. Heckler, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C. and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C. Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at GHebbel@sdvlaw.com Mr. Heckler may be contacted at AHeckler@sdvlaw.com Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of