BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction experts
    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


    Damage to Plaintiffs' Home Caused By Unmoored Boats Survives Surface Water Exclusion

    DoD Testing New Roofing System that Saves Energy and Water

    Newmeyer Dillion Partner Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer Named One of Orange County's 500 Most Influential by Orange County Business Journal

    Using the Prevention Doctrine

    Is Safety Compliance Putting Your Project in Jeopardy? Examining the Essentials of DOE’s Worker Safety and Health Program

    City Sues over Leaking Sewer System

    Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)

    What a Difference a Day Makes: Mississippi’s Discovery Rule

    Miller Act and “Public Work of the Federal Government”

    New Plan Submitted for Explosive Demolition of Old Tappan Zee Bridge

    Want More Transit (and Federal Funding)? Build Housing That Supports It

    U.S. Department of Justice Settles against Days Inn

    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Lawsuits Begin: Iconic Oceana Grill in New Orleans Files Insurance Coverage Lawsuit

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

    New York Public Library’s “Most Comprehensive Renovation” In Its History

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    Constructive Change Directives / Directed Changes

    Are You Satisfying WISHA Standards?

    The Power of Planning: Four Key Themes for Mitigating Risk in Construction

    SFAA Commends Congress for Maintaining Current Bonding Protection Levels in National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

    Pay Loss Provision Does Not Preclude Assignment of Post-Loss Claim

    S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

    Bank of America’s Countrywide Ordered to Pay $1.3 Billion

    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    Ohio Court Refuses to Annualize Multi-Year Policies’ Per Occurrence Limits

    What Makes Building Ventilation Good Enough to Withstand a Pandemic?

    In All Fairness: Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Arbitration Clause in a Residential Construction Contract Was Unconscionable and Unenforceable

    OSHA Issues COVID-19 Guidance for Construction Industry

    Differences in Types of Damages Matter

    Manhattan Developer Breaks Ground on $520 Million Project

    Nuclear Energy Gets a Much-Needed Boost

    Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

    Eleventh Circuit Finds Professional Services Exclusion Applies to Construction Management Activities

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent

    The Future of Construction Work with Mark Ehrlich

    2023’s Bank Failures: What Contractors, Material Suppliers and Equipment Lessors Can Do to Protect Themselves

    Happy Thanksgiving from CDJ

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers

    Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix

    Construction Halted in Wisconsin Due to Alleged Bid Issues

    Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend

    Protecting Your Business From Liability Claims Stemming From COVID-19 Exposure

    China Bans Tallest Skyscrapers Following Safety Concerns

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce?”

    Starting July 1, 2020 General Contractors are “Employers” for All Workers on Their Jobsite

    Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

    Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line
    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

    Executive Insights 2024: Leaders in Construction Law

    August 05, 2024 —
    The key risks that should always be taken into account when a contract is signed are risks associated with uncompensated delays and cost increases. Provisions relating to the scope of work deserve significant attention to help minimize these risks. Defining the scope of work is often put on the backburner while parties focus on negotiating the rest of the terms and conditions of the contract. And when these scopes are inserted, they are often not closely reviewed by attorneys who tend to defer to project personnel on scope. These situations can lead to costly disputes. Instead, make sure: (1) the correct plans and specifications have been referenced in the contract; (2) an attorney or his/her business counterpart is familiar with relevant specifications; (3) the exhibit containing the assumptions and clarifications is clearly written, has been coordinated with language in the body of the contract and can be clearly understood by attorneys and business people beyond the preconstruction personnel who drafted them; and (4) the contract addresses the order of precedence in the event of a conflict between or among contract provisions (including exhibits). With regard to specifications referenced above, an attorney review is advised because many specification sections, including submittal sections, change order sections, payment provisions and construction progress documentation sections, regularly vary from the negotiated sections of the actual contract. Contractors also unwittingly accept design risk through performance specifications, and the accompanying obligations and risks are underestimated by those tasked with the initial review of those documents. In sum, a clear scope is as important as clear terms and conditions. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How Tech Is Transforming the Construction Industry in 2019

    July 08, 2019 —
    The immediate applications and benefits of Industrial Internet of Things technologies are obvious in industries like manufacturing and computing, but these digital transformation technologies may not be top of mind for construction managers. It’s time for that mindset to change. Worldwide spending on IIoT is expected to reach nearly $2 trillion in 2022, proving that these technologies hold a significant amount of value to the industries using them. That rings especially true in construction, where IIoT stands to bolster an already significant commitment to safety and communication. Construction managers should keep these technologies firmly on the radar when making investments in 2019. Smart equipment With sensors and radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags, even legacy construction equipment can become part of a construction company’s IIoT fleet. The data collected from these machines provides construction managers with a wealth of knowledge around downtime, safety, labor, efficiency and more. Additionally, the next era of smart construction equipment will feature more autonomous vehicles and automatic equipment shutdown, both of which promote worker safety. Autonomous vehicles, which self-correct based on feedback and environmental factors, also free up human engineers to move from maintenance tasks into more complex roles that leverage the feedback data reported by IIoT machinery. Reprinted courtesy of Ginger Butz, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Ms. Butz may be contacted at info@moreycorp.com

    Fifth Circuit -- Damage to Property Beyond Insured’s Product/Work Not Precluded By ‘Your Product/Your Work Exclusion’

    January 24, 2022 —
    On January 11, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Siplast, Incorporated v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 795 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022), finding that an insurer had a duty to defend its insured in a construction defect case where the underlying complaint alleged damage to property beyond the product and work of the insured. Siplast, Inc. (Siplast) had contracted with the Archdiocese of New York (the Archdiocese) to install a roof membrane system at a high school in the Bronx, New York. Id. at *1. As part of the contract, Siplast guaranteed that the roof membrane system would remain in a watertight condition for at least twenty years. Id. at *2. If it did not, Siplast would repair the roof membrane system at its own expense. Id. Several years after the installation, the Archdiocese observed water damage in the ceiling tiles at the high school. Id. The Archdiocese contacted Siplast, who attempted to repair the damage and prevent further leaks; however, leaks and resultant damage continued to occur. Id. Siplast subsequently refused to make any more improvements to the roof. Id. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Marianne Bradley, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Workers Compensation Insurance: Dangers of the Audit Process

    April 12, 2021 —
    If your business obtains workers compensation insurance, it is important you take steps to protect the business and yourself from excessive premiums to the insurance company as a result of misclassification of workers. After applying for and being accepted by an insurance company for workers compensation insurance, your business will receive a Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance Policy. It is important that you or an advisor reviews this document. Generally, this document will explain what the insurance company can do, steps it can take to determine the premium, and the responsibilities of your business. The document will also provide the estimated premium. A premium is the amount you will pay for the coverage provided by the insurance company. The premium is determined by many factors, including the classification of each employee. It is important that when your company applies for insurance, the correct classifications are provided. If those are not provided, or provided in error, the insurance company will assign classifications and the associated rates, based on its assumptions and conclusions. The insurance company will assess the payroll and multiply it by an established rate based on the revised classification. The rates are different for the distinct work being done by each employee, with higher-risk jobs receiving a higher rate. For instance, a roofer or framer will have a higher rate than clerical staff. The rate is generally higher for those with riskier jobs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason M. Gropper, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Gropper may be contacted at Gropper@ahclaw.com

    Possible Real Estate and Use and Occupancy Tax Relief for Philadelphia Commercial and Industrial Property Owners

    September 07, 2017 —
    A recent decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court puts in jeopardy all of the recent real estate tax reassessments completed by the City of Philadelphia for tax year 2018 as well as appeals initiated by the School District of Philadelphia in 2016 for tax year 2017. The City’s current practice is to certify the market values of any reassessed properties to the Board of Revision of Taxes on March 31st prior to the year that the assessment would be implemented. The City then relies on those certified values to determine the applicable tax rate when it creates its budget each summer. Accordingly, the Office of Property Assessment (OPA) submitted the values applicable for the 2018 tax year to the BRT on March 31, 2017. The City set the applicable tax rates during its summer budget sessions. However, unlike prior years, this year the City only reassessed commercial and industrial properties and excluded residential properties. The result was reported to be an increase of over $118 million in new real estate taxes. Shortly after the City finished its budget, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided the case of Valley Forge Towers Apartments N, LP, et al. v. Upper Merion Area School District. The case involved a challenge by property owners to the Upper Merion School District’s practice of only appealing assessments on commercial properties. As with the recent reassessments by the City, Upper Merion was only seeking to increase the real estate tax assessments for high value commercial properties. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the school district’s practice violated the Uniformity Clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court reaffirmed the principle that real estate within a jurisdiction should be treated as a single class and that tax authorities are not permitted to discriminate against commercial and industrial properties in favor of residential properties for purposes of real estate taxation. Reprinted courtesy of James Vandermark, White and Williams LLP and Kevin Koscil, White and Williams LLP Mr. Vandermark may be contacted at vandermarkj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Koscil may be contacted at koscilk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sept. 11 Victims Rejected by U.S. High Court on Lawsuit

    July 01, 2014 —
    The U.S. Supreme Court turned away an appeal by thousands of Sept. 11 attack victims who sought to sue Middle Eastern companies and people for allegedly providing crucial support to al-Qaeda. The victims sought to revive their claims against relatives of Osama bin Laden, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned National Commercial Bank and Saudi Binladen Group, a construction company controlled by the former al-Qaeda leader’s family. A federal appeals court threw out those claims in 2013, saying the victims didn’t allege a close enough connection between the defendants’ activities and the attacks. The appellate panel also said some defendants lacked sufficient ties to the U.S. to bring them within the jurisdiction of American courts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Stohr, Bloomberg
    Mr. Stohr may be contacted at gstohr@bloomberg.net

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    March 26, 2014 —
    The Fifth Circuit held there was no duty to defend an additional insured for alleged negligence after completion of the project. Woodward v. Acceptance Indemn. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2569 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2014). Pass Marianne, L.L.C. contracted for the construction of condominiums. The general contractor was Woodward. DCM Corporation, L.L.C. was a subcontractor for the concrete work. DCM worked on the project from January to October 2006. The entire project was completed in August 2007. Pass Marianne sold the condominiums to Lemon Drop Properties in October 2007. Lemon Drop sued Pass Marianne and Woodward a year after purchasing the condominium. Pass Marianne filed a cross-claim against Woodward alleging faulty construction and damage arising out of the construction. The claims were arbitrated. A significant issue in the arbitration was the fault of the concrete subcontractor, DCM. 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

    Landowners Try to Choke Off Casino's Water With 19th-Century Lawsuit

    December 17, 2015 —
    California’s latest water war is being waged at the edge of wine country against an Indian tribe planning a massive casino expansion as a group of landowners tries to stop them with a lawsuit from 1897. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is spending $170 million to build out its resort, featuring a 12-story tower on a bucolic landscape where only the mountains are higher. The tribe has also snapped up 1,400 more acres to house cramped residents of its reservation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg