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


    Yet ANOTHER Reminder to Always Respond

    Home Prices Rose in Fewer U.S. Markets in Fourth Quarter

    What Makes a Great Lawyer?

    A Performance-Based Energy Code in Seattle: Will It Save Existing Buildings?

    Nevada Judge says Class Analysis Not Needed in Construction Defect Case

    The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals

    Utah Becomes First State to Enact the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act

    Contractual Waiver of Consequential Damages

    Firm Leadership – New Co-Chairs for the Construction Law Practice Group

    Landlords, Brace Yourselves: New Law Now Limits Your Rental Increases & Terminations

    UK Agency Seeks Stricter Punishments for Illegal Wastewater Discharges

    Transportation Officials Make the Best of a Bumpy 2020

    New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that Subcontractor Work with Resultant Damage is both an “Occurrence” and “Property Damage” under a Standard Form CGL Policy

    Is an Initial Decision Maker, Project Neutral, or Dispute Resolution Board Right for You?

    Appeals Court Explains Punitive Damages Awards For Extreme Reprehensibility Or Unusually Small, Hard-To-Detect Or Hard-To-Measure Compensatory Damages

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claim

    Despite Feds' Raised Bar, 2.8B Massachusetts Offshore Wind Project Presses On

    D.R. Horton Earnings Rise as Sales and Order Volume Increase

    ABC Announces Disaster Relief Efforts and Resources Following Hurricane Milton

    Surplus Lines Carriers Cannot Compel Arbitration in Louisiana

    Construction in Indian Country – What You Need To Know About Sovereign Immunity

    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

    West Virginia Couple Claim Defects in Manufactured Home

    How Many New Home Starts are from Teardowns?

    New Home for the Aged Suffers Construction Defects

    The New York Lien Law - Top Ten Things You Ought to Know

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

    Unlocking the Hidden Power of Zoning, for Good or Bad

    How AI and Machine Learning Are Helping Construction Reduce Risk and Improve Margins

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurers May Suffer Consequences of Delayed Payment of Energy Company Property and Business Interruption Claims

    Awarding Insurer Summary Judgment Before Discovery Completed Reversed

    Ninth Circuit Clears the Way for Review of Oregon District Court’s Rulings in Controversial Climate Change Case

    Slip and Fall Claim from Standing Water in Parking Garage

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Burks Smith and Katie Keller Win Daubert Motion Excluding Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony in the Middle District of Florida

    TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida

    The Legal Landscape

    Insurer Must Pay for Matching Siding of Insured's Buildings

    Peru’s Former President and His Wife to Stay in Jail After Losing Appeal

    Tesla Powerwalls for Home Energy Storage Hit U.S. Market

    Reminder: Quantum Meruit and Breach of Construction Contract Don’t Mix

    Fire Tests Inspire More Robust Timber Product Standard

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024

    Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

    Developer Boymelgreen Forced to Hand Over Financial Records for 15 Broad Street

    What Construction Contractors Should Know About the California Government Claims Act

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    Heatup of Giant DOE Nuclear Waste Melter Succeeds After 2022 Halt

    EPC Contractors Procuring from Foreign Companies need to Reconsider their Contracts

    Creeping Incrementalism in Downstream Insurance: Carriers are Stretching Standard CGL Concepts to Untenable Limits
    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. Drawing 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

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Partner Lawrence J. Bracken II Awarded Emory Public Interest Committee’s 2024 Lifetime Commitment to Public Service Award

    February 26, 2024 —
    On February 7, the Emory Public Interest Committee (EPIC) honored insurance coverage partner Lawrence (Larry) J. Bracken II with their 2024 Lifetime Commitment to Public Service Award at the annual EPIC Inspiration Awards. As one of the Emory University School of Law’s signature events, the Inspiration Awards celebrate members of the community who do extraordinary work in the public interest and provide funding for public interest summer jobs. Larry has more than 37 years of experience litigating insurance coverage, class action and commercial cases in federal and state courts throughout the United States. He represents policyholders in insurance coverage litigation and arbitration, and is a Fellow of the American College of Coverage Lawyers. Larry also has litigated class actions and other complex commercial disputes for more than three decades. Pro bono representation of clients in habeas corpus, prisoner rights, and landlord-tenant litigation is an important part of his practice. Larry currently serves as the President of the Board of Directors of the Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

    New Jersey Traffic Circle to be Eliminated after 12 Years of Discussion

    February 04, 2014 —
    The online publication New Jersey.com reported that on February 6th a “Pre-Construction Public Information hearing” will be held in Little Ferry, New Jersey, to discuss “the upcoming Route 46 Circle Elimination construction project.” The project includes “installation of a storm water pump station” as well as reconfiguring the circle into “a conventional four-way signalized intersection with a brand new traffic signal.” Conti Enterprises of Edison was awarded the bid “at a cost of $33,837,739,” according to New Jersey.com. The project, which has been discussed for over a decade, stalled over combining the elimination of the traffic school with rehabilitation of a bridge. Improvements include “replacing of the entire bridge deck, structural steel member replacement and strengthening, sidewalk replacement on both sides of the structure and substructure patching, crack sealing and reconstruction where needed.” The informational meeting will introduce the public to the engineer and contractor for the project. "This information session will help residents learn more about the project and what to expect as the state undertakes this work," Little Ferry Mayor Mauro Raguseo told New Jersey.com. "I wish we could fast forward to the completion of the project so we can realize the benefits without the headaches, but that's not reality. We all need to be prepared." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Potential Extension of the Statutes of Limitation and Repose for Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    April 27, 2020 —
    On January 27th, Senator Robert Rodriguez introduced SB 20-138 into the Colorado Legislature. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and has not yet been scheduled for its first hearing in that committee. In short, Senate Bill 20-138, if enacted, would:
    1. Extend Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defects from 6+2 years to 10+2 years;
    2. Require tolling of the statute of repose until the claimant discovers not only the physical manifestation of a construction defect, but also its cause; and
    3. Permit statutory and equitable tolling of the statute of repose.
    Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defect claims are codified at C.R.S. § 13-80-104. In 1986, the Colorado Legislature set the statute of repose period at 6+2 years. For the last 34 years, Colorado’s statute of repose for owners’ claims against construction professionals has been substantially the same, to wit:
    (1) (a) Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.
    (2) In case any such cause of action arises during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said action shall be brought within two years after the date upon which said cause of action arises.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    The 2017 ASCDC and CDCMA Construction Defect Seminar and Holiday Reception

    November 21, 2017 —
    The annual Construction Defect Seminar and Holiday Reception presented jointly by the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC) and the Construction Defect Claims Managers Association (CDCMA) takes place this November 30th at the Hilton Costa Mesa. This one-day seminar includes two sessions: Session 1, Recent developments in Insurance Coverage and Related Impacts on Case Resolution; Session 2, Impact of Design Claims in Construction Defect Actions. A holiday reception will immediately follow the seminar. The keynote speaker this year is Hon. Charles Margines, Presiding Judge of the Orange Superior Court. Other speakers include David Napper, Esq., of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger, Adrienne Cohen, Esq., Law Offices of Adrienne D. Cohen, Blenda Eyvazzadeh, Chub North American Claims, and many others. This activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education Credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 3.0 hours. November 30th, 2017 Hilton Costa Mesa 3050 Bristol Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 United States PDF Registration... Online Registration... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    I’m Sorry Ms. Jackson, I [Sovereign Immunity] am For Real

    June 08, 2020 —
    The Supreme Court of Florida issued its opinion in Florida Highway Patrol v. Jackson, 2020 Fla. LEXIS 108 (Fla. Jan 23, 2020), which answered the following certified question of great public importance: Does rule 9.130 [(A)(3)(C)(XI)] permit an appeal of a non-final order denying immunity if the record shows that the defendant is entitled to immunity as a matter of law but the trial court did not explicitly preclude it as a defense? The Court’s answer to this question was “no.” But this opinion stands for much more than just a negative answer to a certified question. Indeed, this opinion has significant implications upon procedural and substantive areas of construction law, which may affect agents of the state of Florida, including Construction Engineering and Inspection professionals and consultants (“CEI”). Procedurally, the Court recognizes that Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 insufficiently protects the public and governmental interests as “it leaves too great a risk that erroneous denials of operational sovereign immunity will go unreviewed until it is too late.” Id. at * 19. By extension of this risk, the Jackson Court announced that “courts should determine entitlement to sovereign immunity as early as the record permits.” Id. at * 18. In fact, on that basis, courts can address a motion for summary judgment asserting entitlement to sovereign immunity even if there are outstanding disputes as to, say, the existence of a duty of care. Id. at 17-18. Accordingly, and in an effort to remedy the risk of erroneous denials going unreviewed until it is too late, the Court amended Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 to expand appellate review of nonfinal orders denying sovereign immunity. Jackson, 2020 Fla. LEXIS 108 at * 19; In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, No. SC19-1734 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020). The new form of Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 cements the policy mentioned above because it allows an appeal of a nonfinal order denying a motion for summary judgment due to entitlement to sovereign immunity. Meanwhile, under the old rule, the order was only appealable if the trial court order determined – as a matter of law – that a party was not entitled to sovereign immunity. As such, the new rule focuses on what was argued in the motion as opposed to what was written in the order. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greggory Jacobs, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at greggory.jacobs@csklegal.com

    Developer Transition – Washington DC Condominiums

    June 29, 2017 —
    Developer transition is the process by which governance over a condominium unit owners’ association (“condominium association”) is transferred from condominium developer to unit owner control. Below is an overview of the legal requirements in the District of Columbia that govern this transition process as well as a “transition checklist” for unit owner-elected boards of directors that have recently transitioned from developer control. TRANSITION LAW OVERVIEW PERIOD OF DEVELOPER CONTROL A developer initially controls a condominium association because it owns all unsold units in the newly created condominium. As such, the condominium developer has the controlling votes associated with majority ownership and can appoint its own employees as the initial members of the board of directors and thereby control how the association conducts its affairs. This is referred to as the “period of developer control,” during which the condominium developer makes all decisions on behalf of the condominium association. The developer also creates a condominium association’s governing documents allowing it to dictate, subject to applicable law, the procedures and time periods under which control over the association’s board of directors is ultimately transferred to the unit owners. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- A Wrap Up

    November 15, 2022 —
    Over the past four weeks, I’ve “mused” on the “stages” of a construction dispute. What started as a kernel of thought in my mind turned into what has seemed to be a popular set of four posts that I hope were both informative and interesting. Because of the great feedback I’ve gotten, I thought that I’d consolidate the posts into one so that my readers (thank you, by the way) will have them all in one place. Here they are: The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim– This post discussed the steps for setting out a claim under your construction contract and the steps to lay the groundwork should you need to move forward with a more formal means of collection. The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 2- Increase the Heat– This post discussed various methods to increase the heat on the party with whom you have a claim prior to litigation or arbitration. 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

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

    January 08, 2024 —
    When an insurer handles a claim in violation of its duty to act in good faith, policyholders are often eager to sue the insurer for bad faith, seeking extra contractual damages. Before filing suit, however, it is critical that policyholders consider what state’s law applies to the bad faith claim. In the recent case of Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc.1, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 145 (“Section 145"), governed the choice of law dispute, which meant that the insured would be able to obtain discovery of Travelers’ claims-handling procedures, guidelines, internal documents, and communications relating to the claim.2 The insured, Scott Fetzer, argued that the materials were discoverable because documents evidencing an insurer’s bad faith are not protected by attorney-client privilege in Ohio. In response, Travelers argued that the laws of either Indiana (the place where the parties entered into the insurance contract), or Michigan (the location of the insured risk) governed the discovery dispute because Restatement (Second) § 193 (“Section 193”) governs the choice of law analysis for claims that “arise out of insurance contracts.”3 The laws of either Indiana or Michigan were more favorable for Travelers because Indiana does not allow discovery of materials covered by attorney-client privilege, and Michigan does not even recognize a cause of action for bad faith. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Janeen M. Thomas, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Thomas may be contacted at JThomas@sdvlaw.com