BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractor
    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


    2024 Update to CEB’s Mechanics Liens Now Available

    NYC Developer Embraces Religion in Search for Condo Sites

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    When Business is Personal: Negligent and Intentional Interference Claims

    Tech Focus: Water Tech Getting Smarter

    Circumstances In Which Design Professional Has Construction Lien Rights

    Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery

    Benefits to Insureds Under Property Insurance Policy – Concurrent Cause Doctrine

    Utah Digs Deep and Finds “Design Defect” Includes Pre-Construction Geotechnical Reports

    Five Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Named “Top Rank Attorneys” by Nevada Business Magazine

    Although Property Damage Arises From An Occurrence, Coverage Barred By Business Risk Exclusions

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    English High Court Finds That Business-Interruption Insurance Can Cover COVID-19 Losses

    Homebuilder Confidence Takes a Beating

    Newport Beach Partners Jeremy Johnson, Courtney Serrato, and Associate Joseph Real Prevailed on a Demurrer in a Highly Publicized Shooting Case!

    Colorado Supreme Court Rules that Developers Retain Perpetual Control over Construction Defect Covenants

    New Jersey Appellate Court Reinstates Asbestos Action

    Mitigating the Consequences of Labor Unrest on Construction Projects

    Justice Didn’t Ensure Mortgage Fraud Was Priority, IG Says

    Construction Defects Checklist

    Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Pennsylvania Payment Act

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Rikus Locati Selected to 2024 Northern California Rising Stars!

    Elon Musk's Boring Co. Is Feuding With Texas Over a Driveway

    Contractor Jailed for Home Repair Fraud

    OSHA: What to Expect in 2022

    California Condo Architects Not Liable for Construction Defects?

    New Home for the Aged Suffers Construction Defects

    Ambitious Building Plans in Boston

    Understanding the California Consumer Privacy Act

    Increase in Single-Family New Home Sales Year-Over-Year in January

    An Increase of US Metro Areas’ with Normal Housing & Economic Health

    When a Request for Equitable Adjustment Should Be Treated as a Claim Under the Contract Disputes Act

    How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

    Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage

    Remote Trials Can Control Prejudgment Risk

    New York Governor Expected to Sign Legislation Greatly Expanding Recoverable Damages in Wrongful Death Actions

    Homeowner Who Wins Case Against Swimming Pool Contractor Gets a Splash of Cold Water When it Comes to Attorneys’ Fees

    North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/27/21)

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    Drone Use On Construction Projects

    Insurer Ordered to Participate in Appraisal

    Single-Family Home Starts Seen Catching Up to Surging U.S. Sales

    A Property Tax Exemption, Misapplied, in Texas

    Understanding the Details: Suing Architects and Engineers Can Get Technical

    Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court

    Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense
    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

    Additional Insurance Coverage Determined for General Contractor

    January 07, 2015 —
    A series of communications requiring the subcontractor to provide additional insured coverage for the contractor were sufficient to fit within the policy's provision identifying additional insureds. KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. The Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 2014 Ariz. App. LEXIS 228 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2014). KB, the general contractor, hired CRG Construction Co., Inc. in 1999 to perform work at a residential subdivision in Tucson. Charter Oak provided liability coverage for CRG, including additional insured coverage for any person or entity that CRG was obligated to cover under written contract or agreement. 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

    California Supreme Court Declines Request to Expand Exceptions to Privette Doctrine for Known Hazards

    January 17, 2022 —
    First things first. Happy New Year! Hope you had a good one. To start things off in the new year we’ve got an employment-related case for you – Gonzalez v. Mathis, 12 Cal.5th 29 (2021) – a California Supreme Court case involving the Privette Doctrine. For those not familiar with the Privette Doctrine, the Privette Doctrine is named after the case Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (1993), which held that project owners and higher-tiered contractors are not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of lower-tiered contractors. Since then, courts have carved out a few exceptions to the Privette Doctrine including the “retained control exception” (also known as the Hooker exception – that’s the name of the case not the occupation of the injured worker) whereby a “hirer,” that is, the higher-tiered party who hired the lower-tiered party whose employee is injured, can be held liable if the hirer: (1) retains control over any part of the lower-tiered party’s work; and (2) negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury. Another exception is the “concealed hazard exception” (also known as the Kinsman exception) whereby a hirer can be held liable if: (1) the hirer knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the lower-tiered contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered; and (2) the hirer railed to warn the lower-tiered contractor of that hazard. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    July 22, 2011 —

    A year after residents were forced to leave Dolphin Towers in Sarasota, Florida because of concrete problems, some residents are defaulting on their obligations, abandoning their units. In June, the building’s insurer, Great American, rejected a claim, arguing that the building’s problems were due to latent defects, not covered under the policy. Repair estimates, previously put at $8.2 million, have now risen to $11.5 million. If homeowners cover this cost, it would require an assessment of about $100,000 for each unit.

    About thirty owners are in arrears on dues and fees. Charlotte Ryan, the president of the Dolphin Tower board, wrote to owners, that “the board will have no choice but to lien your property and pursue foreclosure if you do nothing to bring your delinquencies up to date.” However, as homeowners default, the funding for repairs is imperiled. The board has already spent more than $500,000 on shoring up the building and hiring consultants. Their lawyers, on the other hand, are working on a contingency basis.

    Read the full story…

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

    Just a House That Uses 90 Percent Less Energy Than Yours, That's All

    August 20, 2014 —
    Active City, Passive House From the tallest skyscraper to the humblest suburban abode, the buildings that we live and work in draw about 70 percent of the nation’s annual electricity. They burn more than a quarter of the natural gas the U.S. consumes every year. They eat all that energy for a simple reason: They were designed to. But that needn’t be the case in the future. Enter the “passive house,” a kind of super-efficient building that’s highly insulated, heated mostly by the sun and sealed air-tight. It is, in other words, an energy trap. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Amelia Hennighausen, Bloomberg

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    February 10, 2012 —

    A judge has ruled that a plaintiff can go forward with her suit that she was injured by a defective archway during a birthday party. A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals issued this ruling on January 23, 2012, in the case of Trujillo v. Cosio.

    Ms. Trujillo attended a birthday party at the home of Maria Cosio and Joel Verduzco. A piñata was hung between a tree and a brick archway. Ms. Trujillo went to get candy that had fallen from the piñata, during which the archway fell on her hand. Subsequent examination of the archway showed that it had not been “properly anchored to the supporting pillars to protect the arch from falling.”

    Ms. Cosio and Mr. Verduzco argued that they could not have been aware of the defective nature of the archway’s construction, as it had been built at the request of the prior property owner. The structure was constructed without building permits. Mark Burns, a civil engineer testifying for the plaintiff, said that “a reasonable property owner would have thoroughly tested the archway to ensure it was capable of withstanding such horizontal forces before allowing children to enter into the area.” Mr. Burns noted that twenty rope pulls would have been sufficient to demonstrate the structure’s instability.

    The trial court rejected Mr. Burn’s statements, finding that the respondents did not have any knowledge of the defect and that a visual inspection should have sufficed. The court noted that this a triable issue, whether visual inspection suffices, or whether the property owners should have done as Mr. Burns suggested and yank a rope twenty times. The court noted that “although a jury may ultimately disagree with Burn’s opinion, it was supported by sufficient foundation and was not speculative.”

    The opinion was written by Judge Flier, with Judges Rubin and Grimes concurring.

    Read the court’s decison…

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

    Bally's Secures Funding for $1.7B Chicago Casino and Hotel Project

    August 12, 2024 —
    Plans for a $1.7-billion casino and adjacent 34-story hotel are advancing in Chicago as the gaming operator reports it has secured $940 million to complete funding for the project and has set demolition for a printing press building now occupying the site for this summer. Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Green Standards; Same Green Warnings for Architects & Engineers (law note)

    January 13, 2014 —
    The newest version of the LEED ratings system, LEED v4, has officially been released. For a comparison of the major changes between LEED 2009 and LEEDv4, check out this downloadable form from the USGBC. As the folks at Schinnerer’s pointed out, there is one major change that is fraught with peril for design professionals– the requirement for increased transparency concerning the composition and performance requirements of composition materials. Notes the insurance carrier: “While design firms always had a level of responsibility for ongoing product research, the lack of standardized, affirmative industry data made it difficult for design firms and project owners to assess the impact of building materials on human health. “As with many aspects of sustainability in design and construction, the danger to design firms is likely to come from self-inflicted perils. When a firm accepts responsibility to ‘ensure that a project meets its goals by using the best products that align with project requirements,’ it is essentially giving the project owner a guarantee that is both beyond the firm’s control and uninsurable by any insurance carried by a firm.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback
    Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Big League Dreams a Nightmare for Town

    April 03, 2013 —
    The town of Gilbert, Arizona had their own big dreams for Big League Dreams Gilbert, which the town was convinced would bring in financial benefits. Now the amateur sports complex is plagued by defects and failing infrastructure. The town was wondering how to create sufficient recreation facilities when Big League Dreams made a proposal that would bring tax revenue from a new stadium complex. Ten years later, Gilbert says it’s not getting enough of the revenue from the parks. The proposal, created by Big League Dreams, estimated an economic benefit of $40 million over 30 years with a construction cost of $22.7 million. Instead, construction ran to $42.7 million and over the last two years the town has received only $250,570. Then there are the construction defects. The structure was warranteed for only one year. That warrantee long over, the complex has problems with various concrete surfaces and has generated injury claims. The town did not inspect the park after Big League Dreams started operating it. They later found out that some parts did not conform to code, with 39 problem areas referenced in a report. Some of these included safety issues like missing handrails. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of