BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnesses
    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


    Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Including One Top 10 and Three Top 100 Washington Attorneys

    Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses

    Rio Olympic Infrastructure Costs of $2.3 Billion Are Set to Rise

    The (Jurisdictional) Rebranding of The CDA’s Sum Certain Requirement

    Preparing For and Avoiding Residential Construction Disputes: For Homeowners and Contractors

    Unintended Consequences of New Building Products and Services

    Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

    No Coverage for Home Damaged by Falling Boulders

    Another Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

    Evolving Climate Patterns and Extreme Weather Demand New Building Methods

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

    Governor Signs AB5 Into Law — Reshaping California's Independent Contractor Classification Landscape

    Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

    Construction Companies Must Prepare for a Surge of Third-Party Contractors

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed

    Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

    Federal Lawsuit Accuses MOX Contractors of Fraud

    Not Pandemic-Proof: The Ongoing Impact of COVID-19 on the Commercial Construction Industry

    There is No Claims File Privilege in Florida, Despite What Insurers Want You to Think

    South Carolina Couple Must Arbitrate Construction Defect Claim

    OSHA Set to Tag More Firms as Severe Violators Under New Criteria

    Court of Appeals Discusses the Difference Between “Claims-Made” and “Occurrence-Based” Insurance Policies

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Named to Hudson Valley Magazine’s 2022 Top Lawyers List

    Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado

    IoT: Take Guessing Out of the Concrete Drying Process

    Effects of Amendment to Florida's Statute of Repose on the Products Completed Operations Hazard

    Collapse of Improperly Built Deck Not An Occurrence

    West Virginia Couple Claim Defects in Manufactured Home

    Construction Defect Dispute Governed by Contract Disputes Act not yet Suited to being a "Suit"

    Senate Bill 15-091 Passes Out of the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee

    Injured Subcontractor Employee Asserts Premise Liability Claim Against General Contractor

    Courts Will Not Rewrite Your Post-Loss Property Insurance Obligations

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers

    Real Case, Real Lessons: Understanding Builders’ Risk Insurance Limits

    Defective Panels Threatening Profit at China Solar Farms: Energy

    Preventing Common Electrical Injuries on the Jobsite

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    Is a Violation of a COVID-19 Order the Basis For Civil Liability?

    Not So Universal Design Fails (guest post)

    Construction Defect Class Action Lawsuit Alleges National Cover-up of Pipe Defects

    SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?

    Home-Sales Fall in 2014 Has U.S. Waiting for 2015: Economy

    Is a Text a Writing?

    The Trend in the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation

    Court of Appeals Invalidates Lien under Dormancy Clause

    Best Practices for ESI Collection in Construction Litigation

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    Arizona Is Smart About Water. It Should Stay That Way.
    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

    First-Time Buyers Shut Out of Expanding U.S. Home Supply

    August 13, 2014 —
    The four-bedroom house that Ilia Nielsen-Dembe purchased in west Denver earlier this year wasn’t her top choice. The first-time buyer had to settle on a home in a neighborhood with a high crime rate after losing out on bids for five properties in more desirable areas. “I definitely sacrificed in terms of location,” said Nielsen-Dembe, 33, who lives with her husband and two daughters in the house she bought in April for $184,500. “I had to cross streets that were not ideal in order to get a house.” While the supply of U.S. homes for sale is at an almost two-year high and price gains are moderating, buyers such as Nielsen-Dembe wouldn’t know it. An inventory crunch for entry-level houses has only worsened during the past year as discounted foreclosures become scarce and cash-paying investors snap up affordable listings to convert to rentals. Properties at the lower end of the market are also the most likely to have underwater mortgages, keeping would-be sellers from moving. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

    Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses. The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.” During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage. The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance. The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty. The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.” The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    3D Printing Innovations Enhance Building Safety

    October 07, 2019 —
    The mention of 3D printing alone is enough to get people excited, often conjuring images of a desktop console that can download and create three dimensional objects such as prototypes, or mechanical parts. And yet, in recent years the technology has given way to a slight impatience, as people begin to wonder how and when it will have a direct impact on both their lifestyles and their businesses. The construction industry has been quick to take advantage of these innovations, and the effects are tangible, especially regarding building safety. The 3D construction technology allows for several key advantages in terms of faster construction times, uncompromised quality of construction and lower costs—allowing for affordable dwellings to be quickly built for people in need. These advantages also lead to safety improvements during the building process. The ability to accelerate construction time without requiring an increase in labor results in a fewer construction-related workplace injuries and a reduction in material waste, making it an environmentally friendly construction method as well. ICC-Evaluation Service (ICC-ES), a subsidiary of the International Code Council (ICC) which develops model codes and standards (i.e. International Building Code, International Residential Code) and delivers a wide array of building safety services, has taken the lead on developing acceptance criteria to address building code compliance of 3D printed construction. Currently, 3D construction technology is not within the provisions of the International Building Code (IBC) or International Residential Code (IRC). The acceptance criteria introduces new compliance measures for interior and exterior 3D printed concrete walls (with and without structural steel reinforcement), load-bearing and non-load-bearing walls, and shear walls in one-story, single-unit, residential dwellings. The 3D walls are constructed by printing two outer layers of 3D concrete and then filling the core with 3D concrete to form a solid wall. Reprinted courtesy of Mahmut Ekenel & Melissa Sanchez, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Ekenel may be contacted at mekenel@icc-es.org Ms. Sanchez may be contacted at msanchez@icc-es.org Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

    September 30, 2011 —

    The LA Times reports that Raoul Germain, a city Los Angeles building inspector has been sentenced to 21 months in prison after pleading guilty to taking bribes. Germain was caught as part of an FBI sting operation in which he approved work in exchange for thousands of dollars in bribes. The Times notes that that in some cases, Germain never visited the construction sites. Germain was offered a chance to cooperate with investigators. His lawyer, Steve Cron asked the Times, “What do you think happens to someone who cooperates?”

    In addition to Germain, another city inspector has pleaded guilty to taking bribes and two more employees of the Department of Building and Safety have been fired in connection with the investigation.

    Read the full story…

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

    A New Lawsuit Might Change the Real Estate Industry Forever

    December 23, 2023 —
    Last month, a Missouri jury found that real estate brokers colluded to artificially inflate and fix their own commissions, and as a result, ordered the National Association of Realtors to pay $1.8 billion in damages. While the ruling will be appealed, with highly uncertain damages and remedies, the case is shining a light on how participants in the real estate industry get paid, and raising the question of whether homebuyers are paying too much to their brokers. So how do brokers get paid? What are their incentives? And why haven't fees for brokers gone down, even as online platforms that compete with them have proliferated. On this episode of the podcast, we speak with Andra Ghent, a finance professor at the University of Utah and a specialist in real estate who explains how the structure works currently, and how the lawsuit could ultimately change the entire business model of buying and selling homes. This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity. Reprinted courtesy of Tracy Alloway, Bloomberg, Joe Weisenthal, Bloomberg and Aashna Shah, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Gloria Gaynor Sues Contractor over Defective Deck Construction

    October 22, 2013 —
    Gloria Gaynor, known for her 1978 disco hit, “I Will Survive” is suing the firm that renovated her second-floor deck, alleging that the work lead to water intrusion into her home. Ms. Gaynor also accuses the company of consumer fraud, alleging that Diaz Landscape Design & Tree Service LLC lacked registration as a home improvement contractor and failed to obtain a building permit for the structure. Ms. Gaynor paid about $38,000 for the replacement of her deck and other renovations to her property in 2007. Subsequently, the singer noticed “ponding of water on the deck, water damage to wood sills and supports, and the formation of mold,” according to the lawsuit. Diaz Landscape attempted repairs, but “the problems persisted and continue to persist causing further damage.” The lawsuit claims that the cost of replacing the defective deck construction would cost about $120,000. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Reminder: Your MLA Notice Must Have Your License Number

    November 26, 2014 —
    Remember a couple of years ago when the Virginia mechanic’s lien rules changed to require inclusion of a claimant’s contractor’s license number (where a license is required)? If not, then this is a reminder of that particular wrinkle in the strictly interpreted mechanic’s lien statute. This requirement applies to all mechanic’s lien memoranda and, like all parts of this crazy statute, will invalidate a lien if not met. Well, another change to the statute happened with a bit less fanfare. The change back in 2013 that came along with the license number requirement for a lien memorandum is a change in the mechanic’s lien agent notice requirement that applies to residential construction. The basic requirement, namely that those performing residential construction must notify any mechanic’s lien agent (“MLA”) listed on a building permit within 30 days of starting work that they are on the job and could file a lien, has not changed. What the amendments to the lien statutes in 2013 added was a requirement that the notice, like a lien memorandum, must include the contractor’s or subcontractor’s license number. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Court Sharpens The “Sword” And Strengthens The “Shield” Of Contractors’ License Law

    July 24, 2023 —
    Performing construction work without the necessary license can have significant repercussions on a contractor’s business. California in particular has become known for its imposition of “strict and harsh” penalties for a contractor’s failure to maintain proper licensure. In the realm of public works projects, any contract with an unlicensed contractor is deemed void. See Business & Professions Code Section 7028.15(e). On private projects, California’s Contractors’ License Law prohibits contractors from maintaining any action to recover payment for their work, and more severe, may require a contractor to disgorge all funds paid to it for performing unlicensed work. See Business & Professions Code Section 7031). These methods of deterrence are referred to as the “shield” and “sword” of the Contractors’ State License Law. Loranger v. Jones, 184 Cal. App. 4th 847, 854 (2010). In any discussion surrounding licensure, it is important to review the language of the Business and Professions Code (“Bus. & Prof.”). Section 7031(a) states:
    Except as provided in subdivision (e), no person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor, may bring or maintain any action, or recover in law or equity in any action, in any court of this state for compensation for the performance of any act or contract where a license is required by this chapter without alleging that they were a duly licensed contractor at all times during the performance of that act or contract regardless of the merits of the cause of action brought by the person…
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kyle S. Case, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald LLP
    Mr. Case may be contacted at kcase@watttieder.com