BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor 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 Final Nail: Ongoing Repairs Do Not Toll the Statute of Repose

    Why Do Construction Companies Fail?

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Additional Insured in Construction Defect Case

    Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage

    A WARNing for Companies

    A License to Sue: Appellate Court Upholds Condition of Statute that a Contracting Party Must Hold a Valid Contractor’s License to Pursue Action for Recovery of Payment for Contracting Services

    Construction in Indian Country – What You Need To Know About Sovereign Immunity

    California Supreme Court Holds that Design Immunity Does Not Protect a Public Entity for Failure to Warn of Dangerous Conditions

    May Heat Wave Deaths Prompt New Cooling Rules in Chicago

    Repairs to Water Infrastructure Underway After Hurricane Helene

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    COVID-19 Case Remanded for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy

    When Do You Call Your Lawyer?

    There’s Still No Amazon for Housing, But Fintech’s Working on It

    Defenses Raised Three-Years Too Late Estop Insurer’s Coverage Denial

    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels

    Congratulations to Haight’s 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    Framework, Tallest Mass Timber Project in the U.S., Is On Hold

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: ERIN CANNON-WELLS

    Panel Declares Colorado Construction Defect Laws Reason for Lack of Multifamily Developments

    Montrose III: Vertical Exhaustion Applies in Upper Layers of Excess Coverage

    Senior Living Facility Makes Construction Defect Claims

    Brazil’s Former President Turns Himself In to Police

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Guided Choice Mediation

    Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

    Arbitration Provisions Are Challenging To Circumvent

    Pennsylvania Finds Policy Triggered When Property Damage Reasonably Apparent

    Hurricane Laura: Implications for Insurers in Louisiana

    Mixing Concrete, Like Baking a Cake, is Fraught with Problems When the Recipe is Not Followed

    Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit

    Miami's Condo Craze Burns Out on Strong Dollar

    Wilke Fleury Secures Bid Protest Denial

    What If There Is a Design Error?

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

    Netherlands’ Developer Presents Modular Homes for Young Professionals

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, Texas

    Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

    Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides

    Record Home Sales in Sydney Add to Bubble Fear

    Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Matching of Materials Decided by Appraisers

    Deadlines Count for Construction Defects in Florida

    Developer Africa Israel Wins a Round in New York Condominium Battle

    A Performance-Based Energy Code in Seattle: Will It Save Existing Buildings?

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    BE PROACTIVE: Steps to Preserve and Enhance Your Insurance Rights In Light of the Recent Natural Disasters

    Disgruntled Online Reviews of Attorney by Disgruntled Former Client Ordered Removed from Yelp.com
    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

    The Hunton Policyholder’s Guide to Artificial Intelligence: SEC’s Recent AI-Washing Claims Present D&O Risks, Potential Coverage Challenges

    July 08, 2024 —
    We have previewed in prior posts the ways artificial intelligence is rapidly changing the way business operate, including the many ways AI has influenced the insurance market, creating both opportunities and risks for policyholders. We later highlighted, based on a recent securities lawsuit, how corporate management may be at risk for the alleged use or misuse of AI and how companies should evaluate their directors and officers (D&O) and management liability policies to ensure that they are prepared to respond to and mitigate AI-driven risks, including claims alleging that a company or its officers and directors made misrepresentations about AI. That potential risk now has regulatory teeth, as the US Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged the founder of an AI hiring startup with fraud based on claims about using AI to help clients find diverse and underrepresented candidates to fulfill diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring goals. Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alex D. Pappas, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Pappas may be contacted at apappas@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Found In South Dakota

    October 11, 2017 —
    The South Dakota Supreme Court found coverage in favor of the general contractor who was sued for alleged faulty workmanship. Owners Ins. Co. v. Tibke Constr., Inc., 2017 S.D. LEXIS 106 (S.D. Aug. 23, 2017). The homeowners hired Tibke Construction Inc. as general contractor to build a new house. Tibke hired Jerry's Excavating Inc. as a subcontractor to prepare the soil and perform excavation work. After the project was completed, the homeowners sued Tibke and Jerry's Excavating for negligent construction and breach of contract. The homeowners alleged that Jerry's Excavating failed to conduct soil-compaction testing before construction. They alleged that the home was built upon highly expansive soils, resulting in damage to the home by "excessive settlement, cracking, structural unsoundness and other damages." The complaint further alleged that damages existed only on portions of the home not worked on by Jerry's Excavating. 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

    Amazon HQ2 Puts Concrete on an Embodied Carbon Diet

    January 17, 2022 —
    Before the ground-breaking for Amazon’s 2.1-million-sq-ft Metropolitan Park office development across the Potomac River from the nation’s capital, Clark Construction Group’s John Swagart and Jeff King walked door to door, introducing themselves to shopkeepers near the MetPark site. The good-will ambassadors were pounding the pavement to inform MetPark’s neighbors of the plan to dig a 50-ft-deep hole—710 ft x 310 ft—and create two 22-story buildings. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

    October 07, 2016 —
    Owners of homes with damage from construction defects have long had the standing to sue the builders of their homes using the legal theories of 1) breach of contract, 2) breach of implied warranty, and 3) breach of Pennsylvania’s consumer fraud statute, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). Before the 2014 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Conway v. Cutler, even owners who were not the original purchasers of their homes, so-called subsequent owners, had a right to sue the builder of their homes using implied warranty as the legal theory. But the Supreme Court in Conway said in 2014 that even though an implied warranty theory is not based on a written contract, it is a quasi contract theory and because subsequent owners never had a contractual relationship with the builder of their home, the implied warranty cause of action was not available. Subsequent purchasers were thus left without a remedy for damage from defective construction in their homes and builders had a second safe harbor from claims regarding homes they built. The first safe harbor is Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose. If the home was completed more than 12 years before a lawsuit was filed, the Statute of Repose bars the claim. But after Conway, if the home was sold, this also cut off a builder’s potential liability for construction defects in the home. ENTER THE UTPCPL On July 26, 2016 the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Adams v. Hellings Builders issued a non-published (and therefore non-precedential) decision in a stucco construction defect case that held that subsequent purchasers could sue their home’s builder under the UTPCPL because the Act had no requirement that the purchaser of a product, or home, be the original purchaser. The decision cites several other appellate cases not involving construction defect claims that held that the UTPCPL was a valid legal theory for claims regarding products purchased second hand by the plaintiffs in those other cases. The court in Adams held that there was no reason that a suit regarding construction defects in a home should be treated any differently. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark L. Parisi, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Parisi may be contacted at parisim@whiteandwilliams.com

    Clearly Determining in Contract Who Determines Arbitrability of Dispute

    April 26, 2021 —
    As you know from prior postings: “Arbitration provisions are creatures of contract and must be construed ‘as a matter of contract interpretation.’ ” Fallang Family Limited Partnership v. Privcap Companies, LLC, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D639e (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (citation omitted). Thus, if you prefer to arbitrate potential disputes, instead of litigating potential disputes, you want to include an arbitration provision in your contract. While there are positives and negatives to arbitration, no different than litigation, these positives and negatives should be considered during the contract negotiation process when dealing with the dispute resolution process in the contract. Generally, under the law, the arbitrability of a dispute is determined by the court. However, this can be deferred to the arbitrator with clear and unmistakable language in the contract. By way of example, the American Arbitration Association includes a rule that allows an arbitrator to rule on the arbitrability of the dispute, i.e., the claims asserted are subject to the governing arbitration provision in the contract. Recent law has suggested that if the objective is to authorize an American Arbitration Association arbitrator to make this determination, the contract clearly and unmistakably needs to state this intent and generally referring to the American Arbitration Association rules is not good enough. For this reason, I have included in arbitration provisions language that specifically states, “In the event of any dispute as to the arbitrability of any claim or dispute, the parties agree that an appointed arbitrator within the American Arbitration Association shall make this determination.” I have also included in arbitration provisions the converse so that if there is a dispute as to the arbitrability of a claim or dispute, the court, and not the arbitrator, will make this determination. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Tennessee Looks to Define Improvements to Real Property

    January 27, 2020 —
    For subrogation practitioners dealing with an installation-based statute of repose, knowing what is an improvement to real property is the first battle in what can, but does not have to be, a long fight. Like many other states, Tennessee’s statute of repose bars claims based on improvements to real property. Tennessee’s statute of repose runs four years after substantial completion of the improvement. See Tennessee Code Ann. § 28-3-202. In the case of Maddox v. Olshan Found. Repair & Waterproofing Co. of Nashville, L.P., E A, 2019 Tenn.App. LEXIS 464, 2019 WL 4464816, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee examined whether or not the work done by the defendant, Olshan Foundation Repair & Waterproofing Co. of Nashville, L.P., E.A. (Olshan) — which addressed bowing walls, cracks in the foundation and walls and water intrusion — qualified as improvements to real property for the purposes of the statute of repose. The court held that the work by Olshan essentially amounted to repairs, and did not qualify as improvements to real property. In Maddox, the plaintiff, Rachel Maddox (Maddox), noticed cracking in her home in 2005 and hired Olshan to assess the issue and conduct necessary repairs. Olshan made several recommendations and the parties agreed on Olshan’s proposal for the price of $27,000. From their initial work in 2005 until late 2011, Olshan visited the property several times to address ongoing structural issues with the home. Eventually, eight months after Olshan told Maddox they could not fix the house and failed to return her phone calls, Maddox filed suit, alleging fraud against the company. After a three-day bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiff for $187,000, plus $15,0000 in punitive damages. Among other holdings, the court rejected Olshan’s statute of repose defense. Olshan appealed, raising the statute of repose issue again. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    Construction Up in Northern Ohio

    October 02, 2013 —
    Crain’s Cleveland Business reports that both commercial and residential construction have seen spending increases in the last twelve months. The gain was only 5.4%, but it’s still welcome in the area. “It’s been quiet so long, it wouldn’t take much to generate an upturn,” according to Tom Laird, of Gilbane Building Co. Some of the upturn comes from new building at universities and hospitals, but the corporate sector is also starting new project. Finally, the city of Cleveland is looking for proposals to develop parcels on their waterfront. Still, some are wary. “It might just be a bubble,” said Jason Jones, the general manager of Turner Construction’s Cleveland office. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Virtual Jury Trials of Construction Disputes: The Necessary Union of Both Sides of the Brain

    May 17, 2021 —
    Bart Smith is the Senior Project Manager for Simply Best, a general contracting firm. He has been assigned to serve as the liaison with outside counsel in a lawsuit against Holly’s Harleys, a project owner who contracted with Best for the construction of a motorcycle showroom. Best filed suit in federal court for additional project costs it incurred, which it contends were caused by the specification of incompatible materials by Holly’s design firm. The coronavirus pandemic is still raging as the trial date approaches. Courthouse facilities are closed so civil trials are conducted using remote technology, if they occur at all. Bart negotiated the prime contract with Holly’s, and he regrettably allowed Best’s binding arbitration and jury trial waiver clauses in the prime contract to be deleted. Bart worries about how the intricacies of Best’s case can be adequately explained to a jury in a remote trial. His concern approaches panic when Best’s trial counsel explains how the trial will be conducted with none of the parties—their attorneys, the judge, the witnesses or the jury—present in the same location. Reprinted courtesy of John Dannecker, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of