BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofing
    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


    Risk Protection: Force Majeure Agreements Take on Renewed Relevance

    State Farm Unsuccessful In Seeking Dismissal of Qui Tam Case

    Pass-Through Subcontractor Claims, Liquidating Agreements, and Avoiding a Two-Front War

    Connecticut Court Holds Unresolved Coverage Issues Makes Appraisal Premature

    Sinking Floor Does Not Meet Strict Definition of Collapse

    “Based On”… What Exactly? NJ Appellate Division Examines Phrase and Estops Insurer From Disclaiming Coverage for 20-Month Delay

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Denies Bad Faith Claim in HO Policy Dispute

    Construction Executives Expect Improvements in the Year Ahead

    Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

    The New “White Collar” Exemption Regulations

    Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    How to Build Climate Change-Resilient Infrastructure

    Risky Business: Contractual Protections in the 'New Normal'

    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    Five "Boilerplate" Terms to Negotiate in Your Next Subcontract

    A New AAA Study Confirms that Arbitration is Faster to Resolution Than Court – And the Difference Can be Assessed Monetarily

    Fix for Settling Millennium Tower May Start This Fall

    Work to Solve the Mental Health Crisis in Construction

    Monumental Museum Makeover Comes In For Landing

    Herman Russell's Big Hustle

    Sub-Limit Restricts Insured's Flood Damage Recovery

    Unpunished Racist Taunts: A Pennsylvania Harassment Case With No True 'Winner'

    A DC Office Building Offers a Lesson in Glass and Sculpture

    Property Insurance Exclusion for Constant or Repeated Leakage of Water

    Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor

    California Assembly Passes Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act

    AECOM Out as General Contractor on $1.6B MSG Sphere in Las Vegas

    Guilty Pleas Draw Renewed Interest In Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws

    Why Is It So Hard to Kill This Freeway?

    Walkability Increases Real Estate Values

    BE PROACTIVE: Steps to Preserve and Enhance Your Insurance Rights In Light of the Recent Natural Disasters

    Keeping Detailed Records: The Best Defense to Constructive Eviction

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Based on New Information …”

    Settlement between IOSHA and Mid-America Reached after Stage Collapse Fatalities

    BHA Sponsors the 9th Annual Construction Law Institute

    School District Settles Over Defective Athletic Field

    Insurance Policy Language Really Does Matter

    Did You Get a Notice of Mechanic’s Lien after Project Completion? Don’t Panic!

    The Unthinkable Has Happened. How Should Contractors Respond?

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    The Jersey Shore gets Beach Prisms Designed to Reduce Erosion

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    Five Construction Payment Issues—and Solutions

    Pacing in Construction Scheduling Disputes

    Kaylin Jolivette Named LADC's Construction and Commercial Practice Chair

    Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.

    Be Aware of Two New Statutes that Became Effective May 1, 2021

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Super Lawyers in 2016

    Illinois Town Sues over Construction Defects at Police Station

    BHA Has a Nice Swing
    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

    California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard

    December 30, 2019 —
    In City of Oroville v. Superior Court, 446 P.3d 304 (Cal. 2019), the Supreme Court of California considered whether the City of Oroville (City) was liable to a dental practice for inverse condemnation damages associated with a sewer backup. The court held that in order to establish inverse condemnation against a public entity, a property owner must show that an inherent risk in the public improvement was a substantial cause of the damage. Since the dental practice did not have a code-required backwater valve — which would have prevented or minimized this loss — the court found that the city was not liable because the sewage system was not a substantial cause of the loss. This case establishes that a claim for inverse condemnation requires a showing of a substantial causal connection between the public improvement and the property damage. It also suggests that comparative negligence can be a defense to inverse condemnation claims. In December 2009, a dental practice, WGS Dental Complex (WGS), located in the City, incurred significant water damage as a result of untreated sewage from the City’s sewer main backing up into WGS’ building. WGS submitted a claim to its insurance carrier, The Dentists Insurance Company (TDIC) and, in addition, sued the City for its uninsured losses, alleging inverse condemnation and nuisance. TDIC joined the litigation, alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass and inverse condemnation. Under California law, when a government entity fails to recognize that an action or circumstance essentially amounts to a taking for public use, a property owner can pursue an inverse condemnation action for compensation. The City filed a cross-complaint against WGS for failing to install a code-required backwater valve on their lateral sewer line, which would have prevented or minimized the backup. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. WGS then sought a judicial determination on the issue of inverse condemnation. The City presented evidence that the sewage system was designed in accordance with industry standards, and that WGS failed to comply with the City’s plumbing code by failing to install a backwater valve on its private sewer lateral. The trial court found the City liable for inverse condemnation because the blockage that caused the backup originated in the City’s sewer line. The court held that the blockage was an inherent risk of sewer operation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the City would have had to prove that the WGS’s lack of a backwater valve was the sole cause of the loss in order to absolve itself of liability. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

    March 04, 2019 —
    In a pair of recent asbestos coverage decisions, a Pennsylvania federal court issued rulings addressing expedited funding orders, number of “occurrences,” and the applicability of aggregate limits under the Fourth Circuit’s Wallace & Gale approach. Zurn Industries, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197481 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2018) Policyholder Zurn, a manufacturer and distributor of boilers, was named as a defendant in thousands of underlying asbestos-related bodily injury suits. After its primary insurers claimed exhaustion, Zurn moved on an expedited basis to require two of its excess insurers to each assume fifty percent of its defense and indemnity costs until they reached a permanent cost-sharing agreement. In denying Zurn’s expedited request for interim funding, the court held that the record was insufficient “in the opening stages of litigation, before discovery has occurred” to determine whether the underlying coverage had been properly exhausted but left the door open for Zurn to refile its motion on a more developed record. Reprinted courtesy of Craig O’Neill, White and Williams LLP and Laura Rossi, White and Williams LLP Mr. Levine may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

    September 30, 2011 —

    The LA Times reports that Raoul Germain, a city Los Angeles building inspector has been sentenced to 21 months in prison after pleading guilty to taking bribes. Germain was caught as part of an FBI sting operation in which he approved work in exchange for thousands of dollars in bribes. The Times notes that that in some cases, Germain never visited the construction sites. Germain was offered a chance to cooperate with investigators. His lawyer, Steve Cron asked the Times, “What do you think happens to someone who cooperates?”

    In addition to Germain, another city inspector has pleaded guilty to taking bribes and two more employees of the Department of Building and Safety have been fired in connection with the investigation.

    Read the full story…

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

    Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability

    September 29, 2021 —
    In Allstate Ins. Co. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., No. 19-3529, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether plaintiff’s expert engineer’s opinion that there were two possible causes of a fire—both related to alleged product defects within a refrigerator manufactured by the defendant—was sufficient to support the malfunction theory of products liability. The court found that because both potential causes imposed liability on the product manufacturer and the expert ruled out misuse of the product, as well as all external causes of the fire, it was not necessary for the engineer to identify a specific cause under the malfunction theory. The court also found that the expert’s investigation and opinions met the criteria set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and the Federal Rules of Evidence and, thus, were admissible. LG Electronics arose from a fire at the home of Thomas and Lisa Ellis. The public sector fire investigator identified the area of fire origin as the top of a refrigerator manufactured by LG Electronics USA, Inc. (LG). The Ellises filed a claim with their homeowner’s insurance carrier, Allstate Insurance Company (Insurer). Insurer retained a fire investigator and an electrical engineer to investigate the origin and cause of the fire. The fire investigator agreed with the public sector investigator that the fire originated at the top of the refrigerator. The engineer conducted a forensic inspection of the scene and ruled out all potential external ignition sources. He then examined the internal components of the refrigerator. He found arcing activity on a wire at the front top of the refrigerator. He opined that there were two possible causes of the fire: either the heater circuit insulation failed over time due to mechanical damage, or the heat from the internal light fixture ignited combustible components of the refrigerator. Since the engineer ruled out improper use of the refrigerator, he opined that the damage was caused by a manufacturing defect. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Tidal Lagoon Plans Marine Project to Power Every Home in Wales

    March 05, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd., a U.K. marine-energy developer, is planning its second project, a 2.8-gigawatt power plant that will use the tides to generate enough electricity for every home in Wales. The company submitted an environmental impact assessment for the marine power plant that would use 90 turbines installed between Cardiff and Newport, according to an e-mailed statement Monday. The closely held company expects to submit a full planning application in 2017 and the project may go into operation in 2022. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Louise Downing, Bloomberg
    Ms. Downing may be contacted at ldowning4@bloomberg.net

    Court Provides Guidance on ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Provisions in Construction Subcontracts

    July 13, 2020 —
    On April 17, the California Court of Appeal decided Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America,1 effectively narrowing the scope of enforceable “pay-when-paid” provisions in construction subcontracts to the extent the subcontractor seeks recovery against a general contractor’s payment bond surety. Although the Crosno case involved a public works project, the rationale and holding should apply with equal force to private works projects. Basing the bulk of its decision on the Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co.2 case, the court found that an open-ended “pay-when-paid” provision in a subcontract is not enforceable against a subcontractor that seeks to recover on a public works payment bond claim. This article discusses the Crosno decision and the implications for contractors on both sides of the contract moving forward. Brief Case Summary In Crosno, general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. contracted with the North Edwards Water District (the District) to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired steel storage tank subcontractor Crosno Construction, Inc. to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. Clark and Crosno’s subcontract included a “pay-when-paid” provision, which stated that Clark would pay Crosno within a “reasonable time” of receiving payments from the owner, but “in no event less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment.” After Crosno completed its work, a dispute arose between Clark and the District, and the District withheld payment from Clark (including the monies earmarked for Clark’s subcontractors). Clark sued the District for payment, and Crosno filed its own action against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, the surety on Clark’s statutory public works payment bond, for recovery of the unpaid subcontract balance. Travelers rejected Crosno’s bond claim as premature, invoking the “pay-when-paid” subcontract language and pointing to Clark’s pending payment action against the District. The issue on appeal was whether the “pay-when-paid” provision in the subcontract blocked Crosno from recovering under the payment bond from Travelers while Clark’s lawsuit against the District was still pending. Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Cindy J. Lee, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at ted.gropman@troutman.com Ms. Lee may be contacted at cindy.lee@troutman.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    SE 2050 Is In Quixotic Pursuit of Eliminating Embodied Carbon in Building Structures

    January 23, 2023 —
    Walking to work one November morning, structural engineer Chris Jeseritz was buoyed by a Nelson Mandela quotation on a digital sign on the side of a Seattle office tower: “A winner is a dreamer who never gives up.” 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

    URGENT: 'Catching Some Hell': Hurricane Michael Slams Into Florida

    October 16, 2018 —
    Panama City, Fla. (AP) -- Powerful Hurricane Michael slammed into the Florida Panhandle with terrifying winds of 155 mph Wednesday, splintering homes and submerging neighborhoods before continuing its destructive march inland across the Southeast. It was the most powerful hurricane to hit the continental U.S. in nearly 50 years and at least one death was reported during its passage. Supercharged by abnormally warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Category 4 storm crashed ashore in the early afternoon near Mexico Beach, a tourist town about midway along the Panhandle, a 200-mile (320-kilometer) stretch of white-sand beach resorts, fishing towns and military bases. After it ravaged the Panhandle, Michael entered south Georgia as a Category 3 hurricane — the most powerful in recorded history for that part of the neighboring state. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg