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


    The BUILDCHAIN Project Enhances Data Exchange and Transparency in the EU Construction Industry

    Water Damage Sub-Limit Includes Tear-Out Costs

    California’s Housing Costs Endanger Growth, Analyst Says

    Oracle Sues Procore, Claims Theft of Trade Secrets for ERP Integration

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment in Pinellas County Circuit Court

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    Ninth Circuit Upholds Corps’ Issuance of CWA Section 404 Permit for Newhall Ranch Project Near Santa Clarita, CA

    GIS and BIM Integration Will Transform Infrastructure Design and Construction

    Pay Inequities Are a Symptom of Broader Gender Biases, Studies Show

    OSHA Set to Tag More Firms as Severe Violators Under New Criteria

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    Contractor Beware: Design-Build Firms Must Review Washington’s Licensing Requirements

    Fourth Circuit Questions EPA 2020 Clean Water Act 401 Certification Rule Tolling Prohibition

    Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

    Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Understanding Entitlement to Delays and Proper Support

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    Recent Bad Faith Decisions in Florida Raise Concerns

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    Limitation on Coverage for Payment of Damages Creates Ambiguity

    Chutes and Ladders...and Contracts.

    Developer Africa Israel Wins a Round in New York Condominium Battle

    “If It Walks Like A Duck . . .” – Expert Testimony Not Always Required In Realtor Malpractice Cases Where Alleged Breach Of Duty Can Be Easily Understood By Lay Persons

    Real Estate Developer Convicted in $1.3 Billion Tax Case After Juror Removed

    Housing Advocacy Group Moved to Dissolve New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing

    Standard Lifetime Shingle Warranties Aren’t Forever

    Certain Private Projects Now Fall Under Prevailing Wage Laws. Is Yours One of Them?

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    Defects in Texas High School Stadium Angers Residents

    Supply Chain Delay Recommendations

    Design Immunity Defense Gets Special Treatment on Summary Judgment

    New Becker & Poliakoff Attorney to Expand Morristown Construction Litigation Practice

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    Toll Brothers Climbs After Builder Reports Higher Sales

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 4.3% in November

    A Loud Boom, But No Serious Injuries in World Trade Center Accident

    Angelo Mozilo Speaks: No Regrets at Countrywide

    Maryland Finally set to Diagnose an Allocation Method for Progressive Injuries

    A Property Tax Exemption, Misapplied, in Texas

    Pensacola Bridge Repair Plan Grows as Inspectors Uncover More Damage

    Locating Construction Equipment with IoT and Mobile Technology

    What’s in a Name? Trademarks and Construction

    Agrihoods: The Best of Both Worlds

    CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

    Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

    EEOC Issues Anti-Harassment Guidance To Construction-Industry Employers

    Recent Amendments and Caselaw Affecting the Construction Industry in Texas

    Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

    Presenting a “Total Time” Delay Claim Is Not Sufficient

    New York Appellate Court Applies Broad Duty to Defend to Property Damage Case
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Recession Graduates’ Six-Year Gap in Homeownership

    October 15, 2014 —
    According to Zillow Real Estate Research, “Five years after completing their degree, young adults who graduate into a recession still have a lower homeownership rate than peers graduating into normal economic times. But at six years this gap disappears.” Zillow’s research demonstrated “that graduating into a recession has a lasting adverse effect on young adults’ employment and earning, a phenomenon known as labor market ‘scarring.’” Furthermore, “Homeownership is closely tied to the labor market, particularly among young adults, and some preliminary evidence suggests that a similar ‘scarring’ effect occurs with respect to the homeownership rate among young adults who graduate into a weak economy.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    May 10, 2012 —

    The US District Court for Maryland has granted a summary judgment in the case Konover Construction Corp. v. ATC Associates to Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and denied a request for dismissal from ACT. Konover (KBE) was contracted by Wal-Mart to build a Wal-Mart store and a Sam’s Club in Port Covington, Maryland. Superus, Inc. was hired by KBE to build the masonry walls. Superus purchased a policy from Massachusetts Bay Insurance which named KBE as an additional insured. Wal-Mart hired ATC Associates to independently test and inspect the concrete structural steel, and masonry.

    After the building was in use, a large crack appeared which was attributed a latent construction defect. Other cracks were discovered. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there were “voids or foam in the concrete block surrounding the reinforcing steel that should have been filled with grout,” and in some cases, “reinforcing steel was missing or not installed in accordance with the specifications.” KBE paid for the repair and remediation and Wal-Mart assigned all rights and interests against ATC to KBE.

    KBE filed suit against ATC. ATC called for dismissal on the grounds that Wal-Mart had no claims as the problems had been remediated. Wal-Mart then provided KBE with additional agreements to give them enforceable rights against ATC and Superus. KBE filed a fourteen claims against ATC, Superus, and Massachusetts Bay. In the current case, Massachusetts Bay sought summary judgment and ATC sought dismissal of all claims against it.

    Massachusetts Bay claims that they need not indemnify Superus, as “there is no evidence adequate to establish that Superus’ defective work caused any collateral and/or resulting damage that was not subject to an Impaired Property exclusion, and that, in any event, no damage occurred during the policy period.”

    As Wal-Mart is headquarted in Arkansas, certain contracts were under Arkansas law. Under the Arkansas courts, “defective workmanship, standing alone and resulting in damages only to the work product itself, is not an ‘occurrence.’” The court determined that collateral or resultant damage would be covered. The court found that “it is clear under Arkansas law, and the parties appear to agree, that Massachusetts Bay is not obligated to indemnify KBE for any repairs to the masonry walls themselves, including any cracks or gaps in the walls.” The court also found that “there is no evidence adequate to prove that any allegedly resultant property damage was caused by Superus’ faulty construction of the walls.” The court also noted that “if the building code violation and structural integrity problem were ‘property damage,’ insurance coverage would be barred by the Impaired Property Exclusion.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Massachusetts Bay is entitled to summary judgment.

    While the court dismissed the case against Massachusetts Bay, the court declined ATC’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that ACT’s alleged negligence in conducting inspections “created only a risk of economic loss for KBE.” Although hired by Wal-Mart, ATC “transmitted its daily testing and inspection reports of the Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club projects directly to KBE.” The court found that “KBE has made a plausible claim.”

    ATC also claimed that KBE contributed to the negligence due to the negligence of its subcontractor. The court concluded that it was plausible that “ATC will not be able to carry its burden of proving KBE was contributorily negligent.” The court was less sanguine about KBE’s fraud claim, but though it “may not now appear likely to have merit, it is above the ‘plausibility’ line.”

    In conclusion, KBE may not continue its case against Massachusetts Bay. However, the judge allowed the other proceedings to continue.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Builder Exposes 7 Myths regarding Millennials and Housing

    January 12, 2015 —
    Builder Magazine discussed seven myths regarding Generation Y and housing, and stated whether it was fact or fiction. First, they answered whether “Millennials Carry Historically High Student Debt Levels,” (True), and second they concluded it was true that “Millenials Can’t Afford Down Payment at Today’s Standards.” However, Builder was split on whether “Millennials Will Pay a Premium for Green and Tech Features.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Another TV Fried as Georgia Leads U.S. in Lightning Costs

    June 26, 2014 —
    Georgia tops a shocking list: most likely place to have property damaged by lightning. Georgia residents were reimbursed for $56 million of lightning-related damage in homes last year tied to more than 11,000 claims, according to a top-10 list from the Insurance Information Institute. Texas ranked second at $54.2 million. Once lightning is “in the wiring, it’s electrifying anything connected to that,” John Jensenius, a lightning-safety specialist at the National Weather Service, said today in a phone interview. “Televisions, and even things like microwaves, they all have little chips in them so they all can get fried pretty easily.” Lightning cost insurers $5,869 per claim in the U.S. last year, more than double the average in 2004, as homeowners added electronics such as computers and high-definition televisions. Still, the total expense for the industry declined 8.4 percent nationwide in that span, to $673.5 million in 2013, because better lightning-protection systems and fewer storms decreased the frequency of claims, the industry group said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kelly Gilblom, Bloomberg
    Ms. Gilblom may be contacted at kgilblom@bloomberg.net

    Five Reasons to Hire Older Workers—and How to Keep Them

    July 06, 2020 —
    The economic downturn in 2008 created a black hole of talent in the construction industry. As a result, finding project managers between the ages of 28 and 33 and superintendents between the ages of 23 and 30 in today’s market can be difficult, if not impossible in some cases. To make up for this gap in available talent, construction executives are going to have to look to project managers and superintendents in the 58-to-64 age range. Fortunately, there are numerous benefits to hiring older workers. 1. OLDER WORKERS WANT TO MENTOR THE NEXT GENERATION. This is their most significant benefit: the older generation truly enjoys teaching younger construction workers and passing on skills and knowledge, while also getting to do a job they’re good at. This means investing in one experienced worker today can pay dividends for the quality of a company’s workforce for decades to come, as mentorship programs have proven to increase the skills and loyalty of younger workers. If a company wants someone with deep knowledge and broad experience to help mold the next generation of construction workers, they should hire an older employee. Reprinted courtesy of Charlie Kimmel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

    February 10, 2020 —
    On November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register. Background As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency. In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective. 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

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    January 04, 2018 —
    Originally Published by CDJ on February 23, 2017 A key component of Australia’s biggest public transport infrastructure project—Sydney’s $6.3-billion Metro North West—is the subject of a critical and detailed technical report describing how an elevated viaduct span failed at a stitch joint between two precast segments during construction last September. Project officials say the affected span, which did not suffer a progressive collapse, has since been removed and its replacement fast-tracked to avoid further delays. Little additional detail was provided. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chris Webb, ENR

    ABC, Via Construction Industry Safety Coalition, Comments on Silica Rule

    February 18, 2020 —
    The Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) has responded to OSHA’s request for information regarding changes to the “Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica – Specified Exposure Control Methods Standard,” also known as the silica rule. Specifically, OSHA requested comments in mid-August on potential changes to Table 1, which designates compliance actions for a range of conditions and tasks exposing workers to respirable crystalline silica. CISC, comprised of 26 members including Associated Builders and Contractors, has formally requested that OSHA expand compliance options. “Expanding Table 1 and otherwise improving compliance with the rule is of paramount importance to member associations and contractors across the country,” CISC tells OSHA Principal Deputy Loren Sweatt. “Based upon feedback from contractors, both large and small, compliance with the rule remains challenging.” Reprinted courtesy of Rachel O'Connell, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of