BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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


    Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis Obtain Affirmation of Final Summary Judgment

    Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects

    Texas Couple Claim Many Construction Defects in Home

    Existing U.S. Home Sales Rise to Second-Highest Since 2007

    Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Water Infrastructure Bill

    Contractors Sued for Slip

    OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected

    Don MacGregor To Speak at 2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Contractor Covered for Voluntary Remediation Efforts in Completed Homes

    New Jersey Court Adopts Continuous Trigger for Construction Defect Claims

    Mark Van Wonterghem To Serve as Senior Forensic Consultant in the Sacramento Offices of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.

    Washington’s Court of Appeals Protects Contracting Parties’ Rights to Define the Terms of their Indemnity Agreements

    Recent Bribery and Anti-Corruption Enforcement Trends in Global Construction Industry

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    Builders FirstSource to Buy ProBuild for $1.63 Billion

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

    COVID-19 Business Closure and Continuity Compliance Resource

    Florida’s Statute of Limitations / Repose for Actions Founded on Construction Improvement Modified

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

    OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes Six Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    Defeating the Ten-Year Statute of Repose For Latent Construction Defects

    There's No Such Thing as a Free House

    Housing Inflation Begins to Rise

    The Trend in the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (03/01/23) – Mass Timber, IIJA Funding, and Distressed Real Estate

    Electronic Signatures On Contracts: Are They Truly Compliant?

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling On Certificates Of Merit And “Gist Of Action” May Make It More Difficult For An Architect Or Engineer To Seek An Early Dismissal

    Pulte’s Kitchen Innovation Throw Down

    Peru’s Former President and His Wife to Stay in Jail After Losing Appeal

    Design-Build Contracting: Is the Shine Off the Apple?

    Useful Life: A Valuable Theory for Reducing Damages

    Trucks looking for Defects Create Social Media Frenzy

    California Trial Court Clarifies Application of SB800 Roofing Standards and Expert’s Opinions

    New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

    When Employer’s Liability Coverage May Be Limited in New York

    25 Days After Explosion, Another Utility Shuts Off Gas in Boston Area

    Crime Lab Beset by Ventilation Issues

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    CSLB “Fast Facts” for Online Home Improvement Marketplaces

    Don’t Believe Everything You Hear: Liability of Asbestos Pipe Manufacturer Upheld Despite Exculpatory Testimony of Plaintiff

    Insurance for Large Construction Equipment Such as a Crane

    Blackstone to Buy Cosmopolitan Resort for $1.73 Billion

    Make Your Business Great Again: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    NLRB Hits Unions with One-Two Punch the Week Before Labor Day

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    Flint Water Crisis Prompts Call for More Federal Oversight

    Touchdown! – The Construction Industry’s Winning Audible to the COVID Blitz

    Issues to Watch Out for When Managing Remote Workers
    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

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    August 24, 2017 —
    The Federal District Court denied two plaintiffs' claims for breach of the policy and for bad faith because they were not insureds under the policy. Tu v. Dongbu Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115200 (N.D. Calif. July 24, 2017). Dongbu, a Hawaii insurance company, issued a two-year policy to Plaintiff Ken Tu for his business. He was the only named insured under the policy. The waste system at Plaintiffs' restaurant failed, causing fumes to impact neighboring tenants and waste to contaminate the underlying soil. Plaintiffs were forced to close the restaurant. A claim was tendered for damage and repair, loss of business income, and other insured losses. Dongbu denied coverage. 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

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

    September 17, 2014 —
    The Eighth Circuit refused to retroactively apply an Arkansas statute establishing coverage for faulty workmanship. J-McDaniel Const. Co., Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14911 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2014). The homeowners sued J-McDaniel for faulty workmanship in constructing their home. The defective construction work was performed by subcontractors. Mid-Continent refused to defend or indemnify J-McDaniel. The insured sued Mid-Continent. The district court dismissed the claim pursuant to Essex Ins. Co. v. Holder, 261 S.W. 3d 456, 460 (Ark. 2008). In Essex, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that defective workmanship resulting in damages only to the work product itself was not an occurrence. Although The Arkansas legislature overruled Essex by statute, the district court found that the Arkansas case law barred retroactive application of the statute. 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

    Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?

    October 01, 2013 —
    Forbes notes that residential builders and remodelers are one of the fastest-growing groups of privately held companies, but is that growth going to continue? Tim McPeak, an analyst at Sageworks, said, “aside from the strong sales growth, these companies have a relatively healthy 4.6% net profit margin.” Another analyst, Scott Cresswell of The Bonadio Group, said that his “clients who do multifamily are exponentially off the charts with new work. Cresswell also noted that firms in the Northeast are also experiences labor shortages, particularly with wood-frame construction, since, “there are not a lot of carpenters out there.” As a result of the new construction, some workers are more money from overtime. A further hike in interest rates may stop this growth. Mr. McPeak noted that “the expectation of everyone is we’re going to see rates rise.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Court Permits Asbestos Claimants to Proceed Against Insurers with Buyout Agreements

    December 06, 2021 —
    A recent New York federal district court decision addresses a number of issues in the context of asbestos coverage involving an insolvent insured, holding that policy buyout agreements between the insured and its insurers did not bar actions by certain tort judgment creditors against some of the settling insurers, and further finding that such agreements can constitute fraudulent conveyances, especially where the proceeds of the settlement are not reserved for payment of insured claims. In the litigation pending in the Western District of New York (Mineweaser v. One Beacon Insurance Company, et al., No. 14-CV-0585A), certain asbestos plaintiffs sought recovery from excess insurers for judgments obtained against an insolvent asbestos supplier (Hedman Resources, formerly known as Hedman Mines), which ceased operations in 2007 due to insolvency. Hedman had at one time been a subsidiary of Gulf & Western. As of 2009-2011, the excess insurers of Gulf & Western were advised of exhaustion of primary insurance as well as Hedman’s insolvency. Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    SCOTUS Opens Up Federal Courts to Land Owners

    July 15, 2019 —
    For nearly 36 years, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985) severely frustrated, if not all but foreclosed, a property owner’s right to bring a claim in federal court based on a regulatory taking. Under the Fifth Amendment, a property owner whose land has been “taken” by the government is entitled to just compensation. There are two types of takings direct or “inverse” or regulatory takings. A direct taking is where the government declares that it needs your land for public use and offers to pay you compensation. You might disagree with the amount offered – and that often is the case. But, a mechanism exists whereby a neutral third party – a condemnation board – will arrive at the compensation that is owed. On the other hand, an inverse condemnation or regulatory taking occurs when the government takes some action that restricts the use of the land in such a way as to severely impact it beneficial economic use. For example, if you own a strip of commercial property and intend to develop it and then the municipality comes along and suddenly changes the zoning classification of the parcel such that you can no longer develop it in a beneficial way, then you might have a regulatory takings case. Under the Court’s Williamson County decision, property owners falling within the later category were required to exhaust state remedies before proceeding to federal court under a claim that their Fifth Amendment rights were violated. The problem with this is that, as the Supreme Court explained, it creates a Catch-22. If property owners exhaust their state remedies and the state remedies result in an unfavorable outcome, the federal court is powerless to overturn that decision under the doctrines of res judicata and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Well, yesterday, the Court overturned Williamson County, in Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. _____ (2019). There the Court held unequivocally a “property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and therefore may bring his claim in federal court under Section 1983 at that time.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    Texas Supreme Court Rules That Subsequent Purchaser of Home Is Bound by Original Homeowner’s Arbitration Agreement With Builder

    May 29, 2023 —
    In a new opinion Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Ltd., et al. v. Kara Whiteley, Cause No. 21-0783, 66 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 8740, issued May 12, 2023, the Texas Supreme Court partially reversed two lower court decisions and held that an arbitration provision contained in the original homeowner’s contract with the builder was binding on a subsequent homeowner. In the decision, the court found that Kara Whiteley—the second owner of the home in Galveston, Texas—was bound to arbitrate her construction defect claims with Lennar by virtue of the doctrine of “direct-benefits estoppel.” The rationale was based on the fact that Whitely was seeking benefits emanating from Lennar’s contract with the original homeowner. The residence in question was first purchased from Lennar in May 2014. Whiteley purchased the home in July 2015. The original contract documents included several arbitration provisions—one in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, one in the Limited Warranty issued by Lennar, and one in the general warranty deed. Whiteley sued Lennar in Galveston County District Court alleging mold growth and other defects at the property. Lennar moved for arbitration and its motion was granted. The parties arbitrated the case and Lennar received an award in its favor. Lennar then moved the District Court to confirm the arbitration award, and Whiteley filed a cross-motion to vacate the award, arguing that Lennar’s original motion to compel arbitration should not have been granted. The District Court agreed with Whiteley, vacating the arbitration award. Lennar appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s vacatur, and Lennar appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kim Altsuler - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Ms. Altsuler may be contacted at kaltsuler@pecklaw.com

    Sellers of South Florida Mansion Failed to Disclose Construction Defects

    October 08, 2014 —
    A couple who reportedly sold their custom, beach-front home on Golden Beach for more money than any other home in that town previously, may have failed to disclose construction defects, according to Daily Business Review. The original owners, reported Daily Business Review, claimed (according to court documents) that “they were ‘unable to spend even one night because an overwhelming smell of mold in the home triggered a severe reaction in Mrs. Hochberg.’" They also alleged the new home had “cracked walls, drafty doors, leaky windows, poorly cut marble and peeling stucco.” The owners sued the subcontractors, but lost due to not filing within the four-year statute of limitations. While water leaks were disclosed during the sale with a notation that all leaks had been repaired, “the extent of the home's repair history was not discussed during nearly eight months of haggling over the property, the buyer's broker said.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of