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


    Caterpillar Said to Be Focus of Senate Overseas Tax Probe

    Owners Should Serve Request for Sworn Statement of Account on Lienor

    David M. McLain named Law Week Colorado’s 2015 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    Alabama Federal Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Construction Defect Declaratory Judgment Action Due to Expanded Duty to Defend Standard

    Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

    Claims for Bad Faith and Punitive Damages Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    What ENR.com Construction News Gained the Most Views

    A Year After Fatal Genoa Viaduct Collapse, Replacement Takes Shape

    Construction Termination Part 3: When the Contractor Is Firing the Owner

    Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

    The Multigenerational Housing Trend

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    Executing Documents with Powers of Attorney and Confessions of Judgment in PA Just Got Easier

    One Word Makes All The Difference – The Distinction Between “Pay If Paid” and “Pay When Paid” Clauses

    Insurer Awarded Summary Judgment on Collapse Claim

    Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty

    Pennsylvania Sues Firms to Recoup Harrisburg Incinerator Losses

    North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims

    Want to Use Drones in Your Construction Project? FAA Has Just Made It Easier.

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

    MetLife Takes Majority Stake in New San Francisco Office Tower

    9th Circuit Plumbs Through the Federal and State False Claims Acts

    Judge Who Oversees Mass. Asbestos Docket Takes New Role As Chief Justice of Superior Court

    Women Make Slow Entry into Building Trades

    Get to Know BJ Siegel: Former Apple Executive and Co-Founder of Juno

    California Case Is a Reminder That Not All Insurance Policies Are Alike Regarding COVID-19 Losses

    The Practical Distinction Between Anticipatory Breach and Repudiation and How to Deal with Both on Construction Projects

    Edgewater Plans to Sue Over Pollution During Veterans Field Rehab

    LEEDigation: A Different Take

    Contractor Sues Supplier over Defective Products

    Lumber Drops to Nine-Month Low, Extending Retreat From Record

    Extreme Rainfall Is Becoming More Frequent and Deadly

    SEC Proposes Rule Requiring Public Firms to Report Climate Risks

    While Construction Permits Slowly Rise, Construction Starts and Completions in California Are Stagnant

    Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

    The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners

    UK Agency Seeks Stricter Punishments for Illegal Wastewater Discharges

    Alaska Supreme Court Finds Insurer Owes No Independent Duty to Injured Party

    Colorado Court of Appeals holds that insurance companies owe duty of prompt and effective communication to claimants and repair subcontractors

    Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy

    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    Sales Pickup Shows Healing U.S. Real Estate Market

    Construction Resumes after Defects

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    Supreme Court Eliminates Judicial 'Chevron' Deference to Federal Agency Statutory Interpretations

    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System
    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

    Mortenson Subcontractor Fires Worker Over Meta Data Center Noose

    April 19, 2022 —
    A worker on a data center project for Facebook parent company Meta in Utah was fired after admitting to tying a noose at the worksite where racist graffiti had also been found months earlier. 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

    Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

    November 16, 2020 —
    All Class A commercial contractors in Virginia are required to have a minimum level of Commercial General Liability (CGL) coverage. As a general rule, this insurance is there for damage to property or persons arising from an “occurrence” that is covered by the policy. Many cases that are litigated relating to coverage for certain events under a CGL policy turn on the definition of “occurrence” and whether the event leading to a request for coverage constitutes an “occurrence.” A recent case in Fairfax County, Virginia, Erie Insurance Exchange v. Spalding Enterprises, et al., is just such a case. In the Spalding Enterprises case, the Court considered the following scenario. A homeowner, Mr. Yen contracted with Spalding Enterprises to fix some fire damage at his home. Spalding promised the repairs would be complete in October of 2019. However, after Mr. Yen paid a $300,000.00 deposit, Spalding Enterprises stated that the work would not be completed until November of 2019. Yen then fired Spalding Enterprises and sued for breach of contract, constructive fraud, and violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Spalding Enterprises sought coverage from Erie Insurance for the claim and Erie denied coverage and sought a declaratory judgment that the events alleged in the Complaint by Mr. Yen did not fall under the definition of “occurrence” in the CGL policy held by Spalding Enterprises. 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

    ASHRAE Approves Groundbreaking Standard to Reduce the Risk of Disease Transmission in Indoor Spaces

    July 10, 2023 —
    ATLANTA, June 27, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- ASHRAE announced the approval for publication of its highly anticipated standard to reduce the risk of airborne infectious aerosol transmission in buildings, bringing numerous benefits to occupants and promoting healthier environments. ASHRAE Standard 241, Control of Infectious Aerosols establishes minimum requirements to reduce the risk of disease transmission by exposure to infectious aerosols in new buildings, existing buildings, and major renovations. Infectious aerosols are tiny, exhaled particles that can carry pathogens that cause infections or disease. These particles are so small that they can remain in the air for long periods of time. Use of this standard could reduce exposure to the SARS-COVID-2 virus, which causes COVID-19, the flu virus and other pathogens. Standard 241 provides requirements for many aspects of air system design, installation, operation, and maintenance. Standard 241 available now for presale in the ASHRAE Bookstore. About ASHRAE Founded in 1894, ASHRAE is a global professional society committed to serve humanity by advancing the arts and sciences of heating ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration, and their allied fields. For more information and to stay up-to-date on ASHRAE, visit ashrae.org and connect on Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Home Sales Slip, but Still Strong

    December 30, 2013 —
    Economists say that prospective home buyers have adjusted to the increase in mortgage rates, according to AZCentral.com. And while there was a 2.1 percent drop in new home sales in November, estimates for the preceding months were revised upwards, beating estimates. October new home sales were at the highest they had been since the beginning of the recession. The Federal Reserve plans to taper off of economic stimulus, which should send interest rates even higher. This may have prompted some home buyers to get in the market sooner, rather than later, according to Sara Watt House, and economist with Wells Fargo. “It’s not really derailing people’s purchase plans,” said Ms. House. With reduction in inventory has come an increase in prices, which also could slow down sales of new homes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    February 27, 2019 —
    On December 26, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accepted an interlocutory appeal of the presiding District Court’s pre-trial rulings in the novel climate change case that is being tried in Oregon. The case is Juliana, et al. v. United States of America. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court certification of this case for interlocutory appeal satisfied the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Ninth Circuit precedents authorize such an appeal when a District Court order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion”—which aptly characterizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of this litigation. 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

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    October 27, 2016 —
    A few months ago, a decision by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Georgia Department of Labor v. RTT Associates, Inc. provided a strict rule for contractors that work with state agencies to determine whether a state agency has waived its sovereign immunity. The issue as framed by the Court was “whether an agency’s waiver of immunity from a breach of contract claim as a result of entering into a written contract remains intact in the event the contract is extended without a written document signed by both parties expressly amending the contract, as required by its terms.” Reprinted courtesy of David Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP and Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes

    May 10, 2012 —

    In the case Antangan v. Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership (Cal. App., 2012), Plaintiffs appealed “an order vacating a judgment and entering a modified judgment in their construction defect action against defendants Shea Homes, Inc. and Shea Homes Limited Partnership,” while the Defendant, Shea Homes Limited Partnership (Shea Homes) appealed “an order of the judicial referee denying its motion to strike and tax costs.”

    On the Antagon issue, the appeals court concluded that “the trial court did not err by vacating and modifying its judgment so that the cost of referee’s fees would be equally divided by the parties and consistent with a prior stipulation they filed in court.”

    On the Shea Homes issue, the appeals court concluded: “1) the judicial referee did not err by ruling that plaintiffs’ offers to compromise (§ 998) were validly served on Shea Homes’ counsel, 2) the offers substantially complied with statutory requirements, 3) the offers were not required to be apportioned, and 4) the referee’s award of $5,000 as costs for a person assisting plaintiffs’ counsel was not an abuse of discretion.” The appeals court affirmed the judgment.

    Here is a brief history of the trial case: “Plaintiffs Chito Antangan, Jimmy Alcova and other homeowners brought an action against defendants Shea Homes, Inc. and Shea Homes Limited Partnership for damages alleging that the properties they purchased from these ‘developer defendants’ were defective. Plaintiffs claimed numerous construction defects required them ‘to incur expenses’ for ‘restoration and repairs’ and the value of their homes had been diminished.”

    In response, Shea Homes filed a motion for an order to appoint a judicial referee. The motion was granted and it was ruled that “a referee would ‘try all issues’ and ‘report a statement of decision to this court.’”

    On May 10, 2010 the judicial referee (Thompson) “awarded plaintiffs damages and various costs, and ruled that ‘Shea Homes shall bear all of the Referee’s fees.’” The latter ruling would become a matter for contention later on.

    In July of 2010, the plaintiffs “sought, among other things, $54,409.90 for expert fees, and $14,812.50 for the services of Melissa Fox for ‘exhibit preparation & trial presentation.’ Shea Homes filed a motion to strike and/or tax costs claiming: 1) Fox was a paralegal, 2) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney’s fees, and 3) the fees for Fox’s services were an indirect and improper method to obtain attorney’s fees. The referee disagreed and awarded $5,000 for Fox’s services. The referee also ruled that plaintiffs had properly served valid offers to compromise (§ 998) on Shea Homes’ counsel in 2009. He said those offers to defendants in the case at that time did not have to be apportioned.”

    “Antangan contends the trial court erred when it vacated and modified its original judgment, which ordered Shea Homes to pay all the referee’s fees. We disagree.”

    Antagon contended that the trial court erred when it vacated and modified its original judgment regarding Shea Homes paying the referee’s fees. The appeals court disagreed: “A trial court has inherent authority to vacate or correct a judgment that is void on its face, incorrect, or entered by mistake. (§ 473; Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co. (1998),67 Cal.App.4th 1228; Olivera

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Insurer Must Defend Where Possible Continuing Property Damage Occurred

    January 13, 2017 —
    The California Court of Appeal overturned the trial court's issuance of summary judgment based upon the possibility of continuing property damage during the insurer's policy period. Tidwell Enters. v. Fin. Pac. Ins. Co., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1038 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2016). Financial Pacific insured Greg Tidwell, Tidwell Enterprises, Inc. and Tidwell Enterprises Fireplace Division (Tidwell) under CGL policies issued between March 2003 and March 2010. In 2006 or 2007, Tidwell installed a fireplace in a home. On November 11, 2011, 20 months after the end of the last policy period of Financial Pacific's coverage, the home owned by Kendall Fox, was damaged by fire. Fox was insured by State Farm. State Farm's attorney advised Tidwell of the fire, and Tidwell forwarded the information to Financial Pacific. State Farm hired an investigator who reported that the fire was caused by the installation of an "unlisted shroud at the top of the chimney chase". This prevented the fireplace from drafting properly, resulting in overheating of the fireplace and heat transfer to the surround wood framing members. This resulted in the ignition of the framing members at the sides, top and bottom of the fireplace. State Farm sent the report to Financial Pacific. 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