BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestration
    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


    Recommendations for Property Owners After A Hurricane: Submit a Claim

    With Vice President's Tie-Breaker, US Senate Approves Far-Reaching Climate Bill

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    Back Posting with Thoughts on Lien Waivers

    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Contractor Changes Contract After Signed, Then Sues Older Woman for Breaking It

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/13/22

    Insurer's Attempt to Strike Experts in Collapse Case Fails

    Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent

    Measures Landlords and Property Managers Can Take in Response to a Reported COVID-19 Infection

    Ensuing Loss Provision Salvages Coverage for Water Damage Claim

    Save a Legal Fee: Prevent Costly Lawsuits With Claim Limitation Clauses

    Do Engineers Owe a Duty to Third Parties?

    Hunton Offers Amicus Support in First Circuit Review of “Surface Water” Under Massachusetts Law

    OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

    Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

    Ornate Las Vegas Palace Rented by Michael Jackson for Sale

    The Advantages of Virtual Reality in Construction

    Risky Business: Contractual Versus Equitable Rights of Subrogation

    California Court of Appeal Provides Clarity On What Triggers Supplemental Analysis Under California Environmental Quality Act

    The Activist Group Suing the Suburbs for Bigger Buildings

    Update: Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

    Skilled Labor Shortage Implications for Construction Companies

    Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    SCOTUS to Weigh Landowners' Damage Claim Against Texas DOT

    ARUP, Rethinking Green Infrastructure

    Repairing One’s Own Work and the one Year Statute of Limitations to Sue a Miller Act Payment Bond

    Flood Sublimit Applies, Seawater Corrosion to Amtrak's Equipment Not Ensuing Loss

    Pine Island Bridge in Place as Florida Pushes Barrier Island Access in Ian's Wake

    NIST Florida Condo Collapse Probe Develops Dozens of Hypotheses

    $17B Agreement Streamlines Disney World Development Plans

    Virginia General Assembly Helps Construction Contractors

    Impact of Lis Pendens on Unrecorded Interests / Liens

    Prior Occurrence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defects

    Administration Launches 'Buy Clean' Construction Materials Push

    Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas

    What You Need to Know About Notices of Completion, Cessation and Non-Responsibility

    Estimate Tops $5.5B for Cost of Rebuilding After Maui Fires

    Mortgage Firms Face Foreclosure Ban Until 2022 Under CFPB Plan

    Attorneys’ Fees Are Available in Arizona Eviction Actions

    Chicago’s Bungalows Are Where the City Comes Together

    Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied

    Homebuyers Aren't Sweating the Fed

    A Trivial Case

    Motions to Dismiss, Limitations of Liability, and More

    Home insurance perks for green-friendly design (guest post)

    Trial Victory in San Mateo County!

    Force Majeure Under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic
    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

    Allen, TX Board of Trustees Expected to Approve Stadium Repair Plans

    July 30, 2014 —
    Construction plans to fix the $60 million high school football stadium in Allen, Texas, which has been closed due to cracks discovered in the structure, is expected to be approved by the Allen School Board of Trustees, reported KHOU. The construction company and architectural firm both stated “they will cover the costs to fix everything -- which could run between $600,000 and $1 million.” The school board plans on using “$2 million in bonds for the construction, renovation, acquisition and equipment of school facilities,” and will then seek to recover the amount of repairs “from the parties responsible for defects and/or construction problems and failures.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Law Firm's Business Income, Civil Authority Claim Due to Hurricanes Survives Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    December 20, 2021 —
    The insurer was unsuccessful in moving for summary judgment on the insured's claim for loss of business income and civil authority coverage due to losses caused by two hurricanes. Townsley v. Ohio Security Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202698 (W.D. La. Oct. 20, 2021). Hurricane Laura struck southeast Louisiana on August 27, 2020 and Hurricane Delta made landfall in the same area on October 9, 2020. Both hurricanes caused property damage and an interruption of business for the insured law firm. Power outages and mandatory evacuation orders caused by both storms created a loss of income for the law firm. Ohio Security denied coverage under the business income, extra expense, and civil authority provisions. The law firm sued and Ohio Security moved for summary judgment. From the undisputed facts, the court could not determine the law firm's entitlement to business income and extra expense coverage, so the motion was denied for these claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    No Coverage for Homeowner Named as Borrower in Policy but Not as Insured

    July 08, 2024 —
    The magistrate judge recommended that the homeowner's complaint seeking coverage for damage caused by Hurricanes Laura and Delta be denied because the homeowner was only named as the borrower under the policy. LeDay v. Integon Nat'l Ins. Co., 2024 U,S. Dist. LEXIS 87369 (W.D. La. April 15, 2024). When the homeowner sought coverage for hurricane damage, it was denied. The homeowner then sued and Integon moved to dismiss. Integon argued it did not issue a policy to the homeowner, but the policy was issued to Midland Mortgage. The pro se homeowner did not respond to the motion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

    January 27, 2010 —

    In the recent case of UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, 2010 Cal.App.LEXIS 47 (filed January 15, 2010), the Sixth District Court of Appeal provided a stunning illustration of the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Crawford v. Weather Shield Manufacturing Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541. In Crawford, the Court held the duty to defend under an indemnity agreement arose upon the mere tender of defense of a claim covered by the indemnity.

    In the UDC case, CH2M Hill provided engineering and environmental planning services to developer UDC on a project that ultimately wound up in a construction defect lawsuit by the homeowners association ( HOA ). UDC tendered its defense to CH2M Hill, the tender was rejected, and UDC filed a cross-complaint for negligence, breach of contract and indemnity against CH2M Hill and others. After the HOA’s construction defect claims were settled, UDC proceeded to trial against CH2M Hill. The jury found in favor of CH2M Hill on the claims for negligence and breach of contract. At the request of the parties prior to trial, the trial court ruled on the application of the indemnity agreement in light of Crawford and, in so doing, found that the defense obligation arose upon the tender and that CH2M Hill breached that duty despite the jury finding in favor of CH2M Hill.

    The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that the defense obligation arose as soon as the defense was tendered and did not depend on the outcome of the litigation, and that the HOA’s general description of the defects along with an allegation that Doe engineers were negligent triggered the duty to defend.

    Although this case did not expand the crushing impact of Crawford’s holding, it is

    Read the full story...

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

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

    December 05, 2022 —
    There is an interesting phenomenon happening in the California construction market since the Summer of 2022. There is a steady but slow rise in the construction building permits being issued throughout California. According to the U.S. Census and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s joint announcement (https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf) of new residential construction statistics for September 2022, privately‐owned housing units authorized by building permits in September were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,564,000. This is 1.4 percent above the revised August rate of 1,542,000. While this is slightly lower than a year ago (3.2 percent below the September 2021 rate of 1,615,000), the trend for obtaining new home permits was reportedly ahead of the projected rates given the market conditions and inflation throughout the country. Interestingly, single‐family authorizations in September were at a rate of 872,000 which was also 3.1 percent below the revised August 2022 figure of 900,000. Authorizations of units in buildings with five units or more were at a rate of 644,000 in September. Overall, while slowly recovering from the record lows during the height of the pandemic, the economic forecast for new home construction in California is positive, but cautious. The flip side of this coin is the construction starts in California, which continue to remain stagnant despite additional building permits being issued. Privately‐owned housing starts in September were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,439,000.  This is 8.1 percent (±14.9 percent) below the revised August estimate of 1,566,000 and is 7.7 percent (±11.5 percent) below the September 2021 rate of 1,559,000.  Single‐family housing starts in September were at a rate of 892,000; this is 4.7 percent (±10.7 percent) below the revised August figure of 936,000. The September rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 530,000. Reprinted courtesy of John Kazanovicz, Kahana Feld and Jason Feld, Kahana Feld Mr. Kazanovicz may be contacted at jkazanovicz@kahanafeld.com Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Revel Closing Shows Gambling Is No Sure Thing for Renewal

    September 03, 2014 —
    The Revel Casino Hotel was envisioned as a playground for Wall Streeters who hated flying to Las Vegas. Instead, it’s become a money pit for the banks and money managers who spearheaded the New Jersey project, and the losses will keep coming even after closing today. The Atlantic City resort, built at a cost of $2.4 billion, ceased operations after two bankruptcies and a 10-month search for a buyer. Barring a sale, the new owners may be Wells Fargo & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., which provided $125 million in court-approved funding. Previous backers also included Capital Group Cos., the third-largest manager of U.S. mutual funds, and Morgan Stanley, the original investor. The resort fell prey to poor timing, bad design and a misreading of the local market. The Revel saga shows what can go wrong when bankers stray from what they know, according to Charles Geisst, a professor of finance at Manhattan College in New York and author of the book “Wall Street: A History.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Palmeri, Bloomberg
    Mr. Palmeri may be contacted at cpalmeri1@bloomberg.net

    When it Comes to COVID Emergency Regulations, Have a Plan

    December 07, 2020 —
    As I hope readers of this construction corner of the “blogosphere” know, Virginia adopted emergency COVID workplace regulations effective July 27, 2020, and with enforcement beginning at the end of September. Among the various items found in these regulations are general requirements for all employers, including among others, the requirement to self determine the employer’s risk level and disinfecting requirements. The regulations also have some requirements that seem specially directed toward construction industry employers. These include among them engineering controls and various requirements relating to communications with subcontractors. For a good overview of these requirements, see this great post at the Virginia Bar Association’s construction law blog. One item that is not included in the emergency regulations is a statement that following the regulations immunizes an employer from COVID infection-related lawsuits. For this reason, among others, all construction (and other industry) employers should have a COVID plan that meets the requirements of these regulations at whatever “hazard level” that employer meets. These plans should be written and distributed to all employees and include protocols for workplace/job site screening and what to do if there is a need for contact tracing. I also highly recommend that any plan be created with the help of a good Virginia workplace safety consultant well versed in the COVID regulations. 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

    Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community

    October 10, 2013 —
    On February 28, 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion with regard to the ability of an owner (and in this case, a real estate investment owner) to withdraw and de-annex lots from a common interest community. Specifically, in Vista Ridge Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Arcadia Holdings at Vista Ridge, LLC, 300 P.3d 1004 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court denied Arcadia’s appeal of a lower Colorado District Court ruling which invalidated Arcadia’s attempt to withdraw and de-annex 70 single-family lots which it owned from the 94-lot Vista Ridge Filing No. 9. The applicable Declaration reserved the right to withdraw or de-annex any portion of the community in accordance with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA), and further limited such right to the extent that “no portion of the Property may be withdrawn or de-annexed after a Lot or Unit in that portion of the Property has been conveyed to an Owner other than a Declarant or a Builder.” The decision ultimately turned on the meaning of a “portion” of the property, as intended by CCIOA, and as applied to the specific language in the Vista Ridge Declaration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lindenschmidt
    Derek Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com