BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect 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


    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    Solar Power Inc. to Build 30-Megawatt Project in Inner Mongolia

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Who Needs Them”

    Partner John Toohey is Nominated for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!

    The Secret to Success Is Doing Things a Little Bit Differently

    Ten Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Want to Stay Up on Your Mechanic’s Lien Deadlines? Write a Letter or Two

    Gibbs Giden is Pleased to Announce Four New Partners and Two New Associates

    Important New Reporting Requirement for Some Construction Defect Settlements

    Force Majeure and COVID-19 in Construction Contracts – What You Need to Know

    Repairs to Hurricane-damaged Sanibel Causeway Completed in 105 Days

    The Utility of Arbitration Agreements in the Construction Industry

    Can a Non-Union Company Be Compelled to Arbitrate?

    How Finns Cut Construction Lead Times in Half

    Subprime Bonds Are Back With Different Name Seven Years After U.S. Crisis

    Competition to Design Washington D.C.’s 11th Street Bridge Park

    Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners

    FHFA’s Watt Says Debt Cuts Possible for Underwater Homeowners

    Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

    New York Appellate Team Obtains Affirmance of Dismissal of Would-Be Labor Law Action Against Municipal Entities

    Builder Must Respond To Homeowner’s Notice Of Claim Within 14 Days Even If Construction Defect Claim Is Not Alleged With The “Reasonable Detail”

    Rihanna Gained an Edge in Construction Defect Case

    Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

    Slump in U.S. Housing Starts Led by Multifamily: Economy

    Maui Wildfire Cleanup Could Cost $1B and Take One Year

    New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims

    What Will the 2024 Construction Economy Look Like?

    Client Alert: Naming of Known and Unknown Defendants in Initial Complaints: A Cautionary Tale

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action

    Force Majeure Under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic

    Pennsylvania Homeowner Blames Cracks on Chipolte Construction

    Zero-Energy Commercial Buildings Increase as Contractors Focus on Sustainability

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

    Are Millennials Finally Moving Out On Their Own?

    Coverage For Advertising Injury Barred by Prior Publication Exclusion

    West Coast Casualty’s Quarter Century of Service

    The Heat Is On

    Client Alert: Michigan Insurance Company Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in California for Losses Suffered in Arkansas

    Tenth Circuit Finds Appraisal Can Decide Causation of Loss Under Colorado Law

    Triable Issue of Fact Exists as to Insurer’s Obligation to Provide Coverage Under Occurrence Policy

    Before and After the Storm: Know Your Insurance Rights, Coverages and Obligations

    Florida Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeowners Unaware of Construction Defects and Lack of Permits

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (02/08/23) – The Build America, Buy America Act, ESG Feasibility, and University Partnerships

    Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    Seattle Council May Take a New Look at Micro-Housing

    The Goldilocks Rule: Panel Rejects Proposed Insurer-Specific MDL Proceedings for Four Large Insurers, but Establishes MDL Proceeding for the Smallest

    New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida

    A Tuesday With Lisa Colon
    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

    Deck Collapse Raises Questions about Building Defects

    July 31, 2013 —
    The Inquisitor reports that twenty-one people were injured when a deck collapsed at a rental apartment in Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina. Most of the injuries were not serious. The mayor of Ocean Isle Beach attributed the problem to more people crowding onto it than it was designed for. “I do not think the N.C. building code anticipates 20 to 30 to people in a small deck at one time,” she said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

    February 19, 2019 —
    The Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision yesterday finding no coverage for fire damage to a building is a cautionary tale for companies acquiring other companies. Erie Ins. Exch. v. EPC MD 15, LLC, 2019 WL 238168 (Va. Jan. 17, 2019). In that case, Erie Insurance issued a property insurance policy to EPC. The policy covered EPC only and did not cover any subsidiaries of EPC. EPC then acquired the sole member interest in Cyrus Square, LLC. Following the acquisition, fire damaged a building that Cyrus Square owned. EPC sought coverage under its property insurance policy. Because the policy did not cover Cyrus Square, EPC argued that a provision extending coverage to “newly acquired buildings” applied, contending that EPC had newly acquired Cyrus Square’s building by virtue of becoming the sole member interest in the LLC. Based on the law relative to LLCs and its interpretation of the policy, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled against EPC. It found that although EPC had acquired Cyrus Square, it had not “newly acquired” the building and so the “newly acquired buildings” coverage extension did not apply. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Review of Recent Contractors State License Board Changes

    February 27, 2023 —
    California’s Contractors State License Board (CSLB) was established in 1929 to protect California residents through licensing and regulating contractors working in the state. Today, the CSLB licenses approximately 290,000 contractors, utilizing forty-four different classifications. Each licensing classification specifies the type of contracting work permitted by that classification. The CSLB website (www.cslb.ca.gov) contains a wealth of information for contractors and non-contractor consumers alike. Consumers can use the website’s features to check the history and business information of contractors, searching via license number, business name, or individual name. License applicants can use the website for instructions and forms for the application process. Contractors can use the website for renewals, regulations, and various resources. One the CSLB’s most important roles is assisting contractors with keeping track of the multitude of state regulations, and periodic changes thereto, that apply to those in the construction trades. The CSLB posts periodic Industry Bulletins which provide helpful guidance and reminders of important construction topics. At year end, the CSLB issues a bulletin to update licensees of the changes to California Law that will become effective on the first of January in the coming year. Below are four of the more interesting and impactful statutory changes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alexander Moore, Kahana Feld
    Mr. Moore may be contacted at amoore@kahanafeld.com

    Power to the Office Worker

    September 03, 2019 —
    Modern offices consist of variable spaces that cater to personal preferences and functional needs. The indoor air quality is typically not as adaptive to various tasks, which can lead to suboptimal worker performance and dissatisfaction. A pilot project led by Senate Properties used BIM and building data to develop an operational model that helps workers get a better grip on indoor conditions. Around 55,000 government employees work in the 9,000 premises managed by Senate Properties, a Finnish, state-owned enterprise. For decades, Senate has been at the forefront of digitalizing construction and property management. They routinely use BIM both in new building projects and in retrofitting. Over the last few years, Senate Properties has developed and piloted the use of BIM for the purpose of maintenance and operations. Testing BIM as a Property Management Platform “We want to improve the work conditions of office users, and consequently employee satisfaction and work productivity,” says Esa Halmetoja, Senior Expert at Senate Properties. “In this pilot project, we wanted to demonstrate how to use a building information model as a platform for locating service requests and performance monitoring in a three-dimensional environment.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Recovering Attorney’s Fees and Treble Damages in Washington DC Condominium Construction Defect Cases

    April 03, 2023 —
    DC Condominium Association’s Can Recover Attorney’s Fees, Litigation Costs and Treble Damages in Construction Defect Cases Involving Misrepresentation The District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”) § 28-3905(k)(1)(A) creates a private legal claim (a/k/a “cause of action”) which can be asserted by a condominium unit owners association (“condominium association”) on behalf of two or more of its unit owner members who are misled by a condominium developer regarding the condition or quality of a newly constructed or newly converted condominium. Under the DC CPPA, a successful claimant is entitled to recover “treble damages” (i.e., three times the amount of damages it proves), plus recovery of “reasonable attorney’s fees” incurred in prosecuting the construction defect claim and “[a]ny other relief the court determines proper,” including non-attorney fee litigation expenses. DC CPPA § 28-3905(k)(2)(A), (B) and (F). The CPPA Creates the Legal Claim that Allows a Condominium Associations to Recover Attorney’s Fees, Litigation Costs and Treble Damages The DC CPPA is a consumer-oriented statute designed to protect Washington DC consumers misled in connection with the purchase of consumer “real estate,” including transactions involving the purchase of a condominium unit and interest in the condominium common elements. Typically, these cases involve the sale of a newly constructed or newly converted condominium, which, contrary to developer representations, contains latent construction defects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie Law Group
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowielawgroup.com

    MTA Debarment Update

    December 02, 2019 —
    Alliance for Fair and Equitable Contracting Today, Inc., a nonprofit formed by five trade associations, including the GCA, the BTEA and the NY Building Congress, has sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority over rules that debar contractors for delays and cost overruns on MTA projects without regard to the reasons for the delays and cost overruns. As described in our prior client alert (see here), the current rules automatically debar firms that are determined to have gone over the MTA approved contract price or time by more than 10%. The rules do not consider mitigating circumstances. Delays and cost overruns are often caused by unforeseen conditions, design errors and omissions, and changes requested by the MTA. The MTA’s rules could lead contractors to absorb additional costs they shouldn’t be responsible for rather than face the risk of being debarred. As argued in Alliance’s action, “Debarment is the death penalty for a public works contractor, and not just in New York. A debarment by the MTA could result in debarment nationwide, given that public and private contractors throughout the country commonly inquire about bidders’ debarment history when considering project bids. The Debarment Statute and MTA Regulations thus effectively export an unreasonable law not only throughout New York State, but to all other states as well.” Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. attorneys Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff and Paul Monte Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com Mr. Chertoff may be contacted at gchertoff@pecklaw.com Mr. Monte may be contacted at pmonte@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges

    August 26, 2015 —
    In Lee v. Hanley (S220775 – Filed 8/20/2015), the California Supreme Court clarified the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 by holding that its limitations period applies to claims against attorneys “whose merits necessarily depend on proof that an attorney violated a professional obligation in the course of providing professional services.” Although it resolved a district split by finding that the statute governs for non-legal malpractice claims against attorneys including those of non-clients, by having the statute’s applicability “turn on the conduct alleged and ultimately proven, not on the way the complaint was styled,” this 5-2 decision also increased the specter of creative pleading and lengthy litigation. In Lee, the client had advanced $120,000 to cover attorney’s fees, costs and expert witness fees for the underlying litigation. After the case settled, the attorney advised the client that she had a credit balance of approximately $46,000. In response to her demand for a refund, the attorney then advised the client that she did not have a credit balance. More than one year later, the client filed suit to recover the $46,000, plus interest. The trial court sustained the attorney’s demurrer based on the one-year statute of limitations in section 340.6. The appellate court, however, reversed, reasoning that the client’s claim could be construed as one for conversion, in which case section 340.6 would not apply. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Expanded Virginia Court of Appeals Leads to Policyholder Relief

    January 29, 2024 —
    Exercising its newly expanded jurisdiction that now permits Virginia’s intermediate appellate courts to hear insurance coverage disputes, the Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court decision that allowed a two-year “Suits Against Us” provision to serve as a basis for an insurer’s refusal to reimburse repair and replacement costs incurred more than two years after the date of loss. Bowman II v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., Record No. 1256-22-3 (Nov. 21, 2023). CAV (unpublished opinion). In the proceeding below, the circuit court found no justiciable controversy and dismissed the complaint where repairs to the policyholder’s fire-damaged home continued more than two years after the date of the fire. The circuit court relied on a two-year limitation in the policy that governed the period within which the policyholder must bring suit against the insurer. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Olivia G. Bushman, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Bushman may be contacted at obushman@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of