BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineer
    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


    Create a Culture of Safety to Improve Labor Recruitment Efforts

    Construction Defects Survey Results Show that Warranty Laws Should be Strengthened for Homeowners & Condominium Associations

    Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not

    Colombia's $15 Billion Road Plan Bounces Back From Bribe Scandal

    Walking the Tightrope of SB 35

    Warning! Danger Ahead for Public Entities

    The Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

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

    BofA Said to Near Mortgage Deal for Up to $17 Billion

    Two Architecturally Prized Buildings May be Demolished

    SunTrust Will Pay $968 Million to Resolve Mortgage Probes

    A Court-Side Seat: NWP 12 and the Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Get Forced Vacations, while a Potential Violation of the Eighth Amendment Isn’t Going Anywhere

    White House Reverses Trump Administration NEPA Cutbacks

    In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

    Margins May Shrink for Home Builders

    New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

    Developers Can Tap into DOE’s $400 Million for Remote and Rural Clean Energy Projects

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

    UK Construction Defect Suit Lost over One Word

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert

    Defense Owed to Insured Subcontractor, but not to Additional Insured

    Disruption: When Did It Start and Where Will It End?

    Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

    Changes to Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act in New York Introduced

    Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected

    Irvine Partner Cinnamon J. Carr and Associate Brittney H. Aquino Prevail on Summary Judgment

    Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch

    Haight’s Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Southern California Rising Stars

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (08/08/23) – Buy and Sell With AI, Urban Real Estate Demand and Increasing Energy Costs

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/18/24) – Cannabis’ Effect on Real Estate, AI’s Capabilities for Fund Managers and CRE’s Exposure on Large Banks

    Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

    U.S. Tornadoes, Hail Cost Insurers $1 Billion in June

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

    Thank Your Founding Fathers for Mechanic’s Liens

    Is Equipment Installed as Part of Building Renovations a “Product” or “Construction”?

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

    1 De Haro: A Case Study on Successful Cross-Laminated Timber Design and Construction in San Francisco

    Building a Strong ESG Program Can Fuel Growth and Reduce Company Risk

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    New 2021 ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Standards Effective February 23, 2021

    New Jersey Senate Advances Bad Faith Legislation

    OSHA’s New Severe Injury and Fatality Reporting Requirements, Are You Ready?

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Components of an Effective Provision

    Keep It Simple: Summarize (Voluminous Evidence, That Is...)

    When to use Arbitration to Resolve Construction Disputes

    The G2G Year in Review: 2020

    Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act
    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

    Used French Fry Oil Fuels London Offices as Buildings Go Green

    December 10, 2015 —
    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s office above Charing Cross railway station in London is cooled, heated and fueled by an unlikely source: used cooking oil. The system, which helped the property become the greenest building in the U.K. capital, uses oil refined less than two miles away at London Bridge. It also helps prevent an invisible problem: “fatbergs” formed when oils dumped in drains and pipes congeal with baby wipes and diapers and block the city’s sewers. “We’re using London’s waste to fuel a London office building,” said Jon Barnes, head of building at PwC. The system contributed toward a one-third reduction in electricity costs after a two-year refurbishment of the One Embankment Place office building that finished last year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Siobhan Wagner, Bloomberg

    Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

    March 18, 2019 —
    In Hexagon Holdings Inc. v. Carlisle Syntec, Inc. No. 2017-175-Appeal, 2019 R.I. Lexis 14 (January 17, 2019), the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, discussing claims associated with allegedly defective construction, addressed issues involving intended beneficiaries to contracts and the application of the economic loss doctrine. The court held that, based on the evidence presented, the building owner, Hexagon Holdings, Inc. (Hexagon) was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the subcontract between the general contractor (A/Z Corporation) and the subcontractor, defendant McKenna Roofing and Construction, Inc. (McKenna). In addition, the court held that, in the context of this commercial construction contract, the economic loss doctrine applied and barred Hexagon’s negligence claims against McKenna. Approximately nine years after Hexagon entered into a contract with A/Z Corporation for the construction of a building, Hexagon filed suit against A/Z Corporation’s roofing installation subcontractor, McKenna, and the manufacturer of the roofing system. Hexagon alleged that the roof began to leak shortly after McKenna installed it. Notably, Hexagon did not sue A/Z Corporation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams
    Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

    Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim

    July 19, 2017 —
    In Duarte v. Pacific Specialty Ins. (No. A143828; filed 6/12/17, ord. pub. 6/29/17) a California appeals court held that an insurer was not entitled to summary judgment on its rescission claim because the disputed questions in the insurance application were ambiguous. In Duarte, the insured/owner purchased a tenant-occupied property in Oakland. Several years later the tenant’s daughter moved in, and continued living there after the tenant died. The insured/owner served the daughter with an eviction notice and shortly thereafter applied for Owners, Landlords & Tenants (“OLT”) liability coverage. The tenant/daughter responded to the eviction notice by filing a habitability lawsuit, claiming emotional distress and physical injury, among other things. The insurer denied coverage and a defense, drawing a bad faith lawsuit for failure to defend and “wrongful cancellation” of the policy. The insurer answered and raised rescission as an affirmative defense, based on alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the OLT policy application. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Highlighted | 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    September 16, 2019 —
    Wilke Fleury is proud to announce that 14 of our astounding attorneys were featured in the Annual List of Top Attorneys in the 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers magazine. Super Lawyers rates attorneys in each state using a patented selection process; they also publish a yearly magazine issue that regularly produces award-winning features on selected attorneys. Reprinted courtesy of Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

    September 30, 2011 —

    Yes, said the South Carolina Court of Appeals in Pope v. Heritage Communities, Inc. Heritage Communities developed Riverwalk, a community in South Carolina. During the earlier trial, HCI “conceded that construction defects existed at Riverwalk, and repairs needed to be made.” The trial court found that the construction was negligent, awarding the property owners association $4.25 million in actual damages and $250,000 in punitive damages, with the class of owners awarded $250,000 in actual damages and $750,000 in punitive damages. HCI appealed on nine issues. All were rejected by the appeals court.

    The court rejected HCI’s claim that the judge’s instruction to the jury suggested to the jury that “the court had already determined that Appellants were willful, wanton, and reckless.” But here, the appeals court found “no reversible error.”

    The general contractor for Riverwalk was BuildStar. Off-site management and sale were managed by Heritage Riverwalk, Inc., which also owned title to the property. Both these companies were owned by Heritage Communities, Inc. During the trial, an HCI employee testified that “the three corporations shared the same officers, directors, office, and telephone number.” The trial court found that the three entities were amalgamated. This was upheld by the appeals court.

    Nor did the appeals agree with the HCI that the trial court had improperly certified a class. The owners were seen as properly constituting a class. Further, the court held that the property owners’ losses were properly included by the trial court. HCI objected at trial to the inclusion of evidence of subsequent remedial measures, however, as they did not object that it was inadmissible, the issue could not be addressed at appeal.

    HCI argued on appeal that the trial court should not have allowed evidence of defects at other HCI developments. The appeals court noted that “the construction defects at the other HCI developments were substantially similar to those experienced by Riverwalk.”

    The court additionally found that the negligence claims, the estimated damages (since full damage could not be determined until all defective wood was removed), and the award of punitive damages were all properly applied.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    New York Court of Appeals Takes Narrow View of Labor Law Provisions in Recent Cases

    July 03, 2022 —
    Since the end of March, the New York State Court of Appeals has issued decisions in favor of the defense concerning New York Labor Law §240 and §241. These pro-defendant decisions take a narrow view of the scope of the Labor Law provisions. However, while it remains to be seen how the Court’s below will apply the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, these recent decisions are beneficial for the defense bar going forward. In Toussaint v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J March 22, 2022 N.Y. LEXIS 391 | 2022 NY Slip Op 01955 | 2022 WL 837579, the Court held that 12 NYCRR 23-9.9 (a), does not set forth a concrete specification sufficient to give rise to a non-delegable duty under Labor Law § 241 (6). In Toussaint Plaintiff, who was an employee of Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc., brought the lawsuit against the Port Authority asserting claims under Labor Law § 200 (1) and Labor Law § 241 (6) after he was struck by a power buggy while operating a rebar-bending machine at the World Trade Center Transportation Hub construction site owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Power buggies are small, self-operated vehicles used to move materials on construction sites. On the day of the accident, a trained and properly designated operator drove the buggy into the area near the plaintiff's workstation. That vehicle operator got off the vehicle, but short time thereafter, another worker—who was not designated or trained to do so—drove the buggy a short while prior to losing control and striking plaintiff. Plaintiff relied upon 12 NYCRR 23-9.9(a) which states that “[no person other than a trained and competent operator designated by the employer shall operate a power buggy.” In rejecting plaintiff’s argument the Court held that the "trained and competent operator" requirement is general, as it lacks a specific requirement or standard of conduct. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and Matthew Feinberg, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Feinberg may be contacted at mfeinberg@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' Basements

    December 17, 2015 —
    Parents, rejoice. Your offspring may finally be moving out of the family basement. A new report (PDF) from Fannie Mae, the U.S. government-backed mortgage company, suggests that the millennial generation is getting a move on. "According to the ACS [Census Bureau’s American Community Survey], the number of homeowners aged 25-34 fell by more than 250,000 in each year between 2007 and 2012, but has declined by less than 100,000 annually since then," Fannie Mae said. "In fact, the decline between 2013 and 2014 was statistically insignificant, the first indication of stability in the number of young homeowners since the onset of the Great Recession." So while the number of homeowners in that age range is still on the decline, the trend looks poised for a reversal, and Fannie Mae said it won't take much to see positive growth in millennial homeownership in the near future. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Julie Verhage, Bloomberg

    New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure

    April 08, 2024 —
    AUSTIN, April 04, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A recent nationwide survey conducted on the risks of asbestos in America revealed that 38% of respondents have worked in high-risk industries where asbestos was present, while 47% have experienced indirect exposure through family members employed in these high-risk environments. The survey results reflect the fact that, despite the EPA's recent ban on ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, the threat of exposure still looms large in the US, underscoring the urgent need for continued vigilance and action to safeguard public health. Compounding the concern is the revelation that only 8% of Americans undergo regular testing. These findings, released today, underscore the urgent necessity for Asbestos Cancer Risk Awareness and routine testing. They emphasize the crucial importance of proactive measures to mitigate the pervasive risks associated with asbestos exposure in the United States. The study was conducted by Researchscape on behalf of The Law Offices of Justinian C. Lane, Esq. - PLLC, a leading firm advocating for testing and compensation for individuals exposed to asbestos on the job and their families who are at risk due to second-hand exposure. According to the survey, 86% of respondents have never undergone any testing for asbestos exposure, while a mere 8% are tested regularly. The lack of testing is particularly concerning among the Gen X demographic who could be at risk due to secondhand exposure from a family member who worked with asbestos when it was still prevalent, with 92% reporting no testing, highlighting the potential risks associated with secondhand exposure. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of