BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    You Can Take This Job and Shove It!

    Trump Abandons Plan for Council on Infrastructure

    Four Things Construction Professionals Need to Know About Asbestos

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion

    New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation

    Good and Bad News on Construction Employment

    Supreme Court of Washington State Upholds SFAA Position on Spearin Doctrine

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

    Contractor’s Unwritten Contractual Claim Denied by Sovereign Immunity; Mandamus Does Not Help

    Latosha Ellis Joins The National Black Lawyers Top 40 Under 40

    Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

    Updated 3/13/20: Coronavirus is Here: What Does That Mean for Your Project and Your Business?

    Nebraska Joins the Ranks—No CGL Coverage for Faulty Work

    Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

    PFAS and the Challenge of Cleaning Up “Forever”

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

    HOA Group Speaking Out Against Draft of Colorado’s Construction Defects Bill

    Atlanta Hawks Billionaire Owner Plans $5 Billion Downtown Transformation

    Repairs Could Destroy Evidence in Construction Defect Suit

    Red Wings Owner, Needing Hockey-Arena Neighborhood, Builds One

    Homeowner’s Claims Defeated Because “Gravamen” of Complaint was Fraud, not Breach of Contract

    Oregon Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Construction (Construction Defect) Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

    MTA Debarment Update

    Federal District Court Addresses Material Misrepresentation in First Party Property Damage Claim

    Monitoring Building Moisture with RFID – Interview with Jarmo Tuppurainen

    Quick Note: Can a Party Disclaim Liability in their Contract to Fraud?

    Contractor Wins in Arbitration Only to Lose Before the Superior Court on Section 7031 Claim

    New Executive Orders Expedite the Need for Contractors to Go Green

    Colorado Introduces Construction Defect Bill for Commuter Communities

    Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Does Not Allege Property Damage, Barring Coverage

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

    With Trump's Tariff Talk, Time to Negotiate for Escalation Clauses in Construction Contracts

    Construction Termination Issues Part 6: This is the End (Tips for The Design Professional)

    Outcry Over Peru’s Vast Graft Probe Prompts Top Lawyer to Quit

    Not So Fast, My Friend: Pacing and Concurrent Delay

    Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

    Mercury News Editorial Calls for Investigation of Bay Bridge Construction

    Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance

    Thanks for My 6th Year Running as a Construction Litigation Super Lawyer

    Commercial Real Estate in 2023: A Snapshot

    Former Sponsor of the Lenox Facing Suit in Supreme Court

    Updated: Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    You’ve Been Suspended – Were You Ready?

    Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

    Sensors for Smarter Construction – Interview with Laura Kassovic of MbientLab

    Claims Litigated Under Government Claims Act Must “Fairly Reflect” Factual Claims Made in Underlying Government Claim

    12 Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2022 U.S. News Best Lawyers in Multiple Practice Areas

    Construction Firm Settles Suit Over 2012 Calif. Wildfire

    New York Restaurant and Bar Fire Caused by Electric Defect

    Show Me the Money: The Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Penalties
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages

    March 07, 2014 —
    In Flint, once a thriving auto-industry hub, excavators with long metal arms and shovels have begun tearing down 1,500 dilapidated homes in an attempt to lift the housing market. The demolitions in this Michigan city of about 100,000 people are part of the stepped up efforts by officials in several Midwestern states to rid their blighted neighborhoods of decayed housing that’s depressing prices. The funding for the excavator work comes from a surprising source -- the Hardest Hit Fund of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, created in 2008 to stabilize to the financial system. The $7.6 billion Hardest Hit Fund was intended to help troubled property owners avoid foreclosure and keep their homes. As foreclosures fall in most parts of the country, the fund is using the unspent $3.2 billion to remedy the crisis of abandoned homes. In Detroit alone, 70,000 dwellings, or about 19 percent of the total, may need to be torn down, according to the city. Mr. Louis may be contacted at blouis1@bloomberg.net. Mr. Green may be contacted at jgreen16@bloomberg.net. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Louis and Jeff Green, Bloomberg

    Federal Contractors Should Request Debriefings As A Matter Of Course

    May 30, 2018 —
    Federal Contractors—especially those engaging in FAR Part 15 direct contract negotiations—should make it a routine practice to timely request debriefings after the Contracting Agency excludes the bidder from the competitive range (“pre-award debriefing”) or after the Agency issues the award (“post-award debriefing”). Debriefings allow the Contractor to understand the evaluation process used by the Contracting Agency and to receive an assessment of how it fared in that evaluation. This is not a one-sided presentation as Contracting Agencies are required to answer the contractor’s relevant questions about the decision-making process. Properly run debriefings can be used to better tailor future bids and negotiations, as further marketing to the Contracting Agency for future awards, and, occasionally, to unearth grounds for a potential protest if any part of the evaluation process is out of sync with the FARs. In the event the contractor learns of a basis for protest at the debriefing, the deadline to file a protest begins running from the date of the debriefing—whether it was required or not. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com

    California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

    June 15, 2020 —
    In another round of litigation involving coverage issues between Montrose Chemical Corporation and its insurers, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Montrose, adopting vertical exhaustion of excess policies. Montrose Chem. Corp. of Calif. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 9 Ca. 5th 215 (2020). In 1990, the United States and the State of California sued Montrose for contamination from 1947 to 1982 caused by Montrose's facility manufacturing insecticides. Montrose had primary and excess liability policies from defendant insurers between 1961 and 1985. Forty insurers collectively issued more than 115 excess policies, which collectively provided coverage sufficient to indemnify Montrose's anticipate total liability. Primary coverage was exhausted. Each excess policy provided that Montrose had to exhaust the limits of its underlying coverage before there would be excess coverage. Which excess carrier could be called on first was the issued before the California Supreme Court. Montrose proposed a rule of "vertical exhaustion" or "elective stacking," whereby it could access any excess policy once it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points in the same policy period. The insurers, in contract, argued for "horizontal exhaustion," whereby Montrose could access an excess policy only after it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. 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

    How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court

    April 03, 2019 —
    A recent decision issued by the Iowa Supreme Court, City of West Liberty, Iowa v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, highlights the importance for a policyholder to investigate a loss fully so that a wide range of evidence can be gathered and presented to show why there is coverage. The facts of City of West Liberty are a little unusual, but its lesson is not limited to Iowa insurance law; the issues litigated in this case show the value of investigating what caused a loss regardless of whether the loss occurred in California, Iowa, or elsewhere. Background on the Case City of West Liberty involved an insurance coverage dispute between a municipality owned electrical power plant and its insurance company. The dispute arose from a single adventurous squirrel who climbed onto an outdoor electrical transformer, touching two different parts of the power plant: a portion of the steel frame and a bare cable clamp. In doing so, the squirrel created a “conductive path,” in the words of the Iowa Supreme Court, between the high voltage clamp and the grounded frame. The path, once created, caused significant damage to the transformer and other electrical equipment at the city’s power plant. The city submitted a claim for the resulting damage, but the insurance company denied it. The insurer denied based on an exclusion in the insurance policy for property damage “caused by arcing or by electrical currents other than lightning.” According to the insurance company, the squirrel had no role in causing the damage; all of the damage resulted from arcing, which was excluded from coverage. The ensuing lawsuit focused upon whether the squirrel had a role in causing the damage. If yes, then there would be coverage according to Iowa insurance law; when a loss results from two causes, one of which is covered and the other is not, then there is coverage if the loss occurs from the covered cause. Due to this legal standard, the city contended that, apart from the arcing causing any damage, the squirrel caused the damage too. Because the insurance policy provided protection against mischievous actions performed by squirrels, the city contended that it was entitled to coverage, even if the excluded arcing contributed to the same damage too. Unfortunately, for the city, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected that argument, finding instead that the property damage resulted only from the arcing, which was excluded from coverage. In reaching its conclusion, the court absolved the squirrel of any wrongdoing, finding that it did not cause any of the property damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Graham C. Mills, Newmeyer & Dillion
    Mr. Mills may be contacted at graham.mills@ndlf.com

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    September 01, 2011 —

    The California Court of Appeals has rejected a motion by a homeowner in a dispute with the contractor who built an extension to his home. In McCracken v. Pirvulete, Mr. McCracken filed a mechanics lien after Mr. Pirvulete failed to complete payment. The matter went to trial with a series of exhibits that showed “the contractual relationship was strained and the parties disagreed over performance and payment.” As a result of the trial, the court awarded Mr. McCracken, the contractor, $1,922.22.

    Mr. Pirvulete appealed, contending that the court had not allowed his daughter to act as a translator, that the court had failed to give him sufficient time to present his case, that the mechanics lien should have been dismissed, and several other claims, all before a formal judgment was issued. After the court formalized its judgment and rejected the appeal, Mr. Pirvulete appealed again.

    The appeals court found that Mr. Pirvulete did not provide an adequate record for review. The court dismissed Mr. Pirvulete’s claims. The court notes that Mr. Pirvulete claimed that a request for a discovery period was denied, however, he has provided neither the request nor the denial. The trial court has no record of either.

    Nor was there a record of a request that Mr. Pirvulete’s daughter provide translation. The court notes, “so far as we can glean from the record provided, the Register of Actions states, ‘Trial to proceed without Romanian Interpreter for Defendant; Daughter present to interpret if needed.’” Additionally, the court found that “there has been no showing that his facility with the English language is or was impaired in any way or that there was any portion of any proceeding, which he did not understand.”

    Further, the appeals court found there were no grounds for a new trial, despite Mr. Pirvulete’s filings. The court concluded, “The owner has failed to provide a record adequate for review of most, if not all, of the claims of error. Some issues are not cognizable because they relate to entirely separate proceedings, and not the trial below. To the limited extent that the claims are examinable, the owner has made no showing of error.” The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court against Mr. Pirvulete.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Facing Manslaughter Charges In Worker's 2021 Trench Collapse Death, Colorado Contractor Who Willfully Ignored Federal Law Surrenders To Police

    February 06, 2023 —
    BRECKENRIDGE, CO – The owner of a Vail construction company facing felony manslaughter charges has surrendered to local law enforcement after the Summit County Sheriff's Office in Breckenridge, Colorado, issued an arrest warrant on Jan. 24, 2023, related to the findings of a federal safety investigation into a deadly trench collapse in November 2021. In May 2022, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited Peter Dillon, owner of the now-defunct A4S LLC, after a worker installing residential sewer pipes suffered fatal injuries when the trench around him caved in. The collapse resulted from deteriorating conditions at the project, which A4S LLC could have prevented by using legally required trench protection systems. OSHA issued three willful citations to A4S LLC for not ensuring the excavation was inspected by a competent person, failing to instruct employees on the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions and not having a trench protective system in place. Investigators also issued an additional serious citation for not having a safe means of egress within 25 lateral feet of employees working in a trench. The agency proposed penalties of $449,583 and placed the company in OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program. The department referred the case to the 5th Judicial District Attorney's office recommending criminal charges for A4S LLC's refusal to require safety protection, despite worsening trench conditions that included at least one trench collapse. A4S LLC has since shuttered and Dillon agreed to forfeit any future ownership, leadership or management position that involves trenching or excavation, or the oversight of workplace safety and health. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Firm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in Germany

    October 16, 2013 —
    Getrag Transmission, a German firm, is being sued by a Detroit-based construction firm that Getrag had hired to build a factory in Indiana. When a court gave the go-ahead to Walbridge Construction for the suit, Getrag appealed, stating that the case should be held in German so that Getrag officials do not have the expense of traveling to Indiana. Getrag was building the plant, which would have cost $350 million, as part of a partnership with Chrysler. Chrysler dropped from the project after filing for bankruptcy. Shortly afterward, Getrag also filed for bankruptcy. Walbridge is seeking $118.5 million due to expenses incurred with subcontractors. Chrysler has announced its intention of finishing the plant, which they estimate will cost about $162 million. Once complete, the plant will employ about 850 workers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Non-compliance With Endorsement Means No Indemnity Coverage

    January 15, 2019 —
    The insured's failure to verify that subcontractors had CGL policies and to provide a contract stating that the subcontractors would indemnify the insured as required by the policy's endorsement meant there was no coverage for the insured. Cincinnati Spec. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Milionis Constr., Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199658 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 26, 2018). The homeowners filed suit against Milionis, the general contractor for construction of a home. The underlying suit alleged that Milionis breached the parties' agreement by leaving the home unfinished. Cincinnati defended Milionis under a reservation of rights. 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