BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering 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


    Lucky No. 7: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Pro-Policyholder Decision Regarding Additional Insured Coverage for Upstream Parties

    Goldman Veteran Said to Buy Mortgages After Big Short

    Examination of the Product Does Not Stop a Pennsylvania Court From Applying the Malfunction Theory

    Maine Case Demonstrates High Risk for Buying Home “As Is”

    EPA Looks to Reduce Embodied Carbon in Materials With $160M in Grants

    Rulemaking to Modernize, Expand DOI’s “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment Rules Expected Fall 2023

    How Many New Home Starts are from Teardowns?

    Feds OK $9B Houston Highway Project After Two-Year Pause

    The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

    New York State Legislature Reintroduces Bills to Extend Mortgage Recording Tax to Mezzanine Debt and Preferred Equity

    Summary Judgment in Favor of General Contractor Under Privette Doctrine Overturned: Lessons Learned

    California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim

    No Additional Insured Coverage Under Umbrella Policy

    Ownership is Not a Conclusive Factor for Ongoing Operations Additional Insured Coverage

    Dealing with Hazardous Substances on the Construction Site

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings

    Does Arbitration Apply to Contemporaneously Executed Contracts (When One of the Contracts Does Not Have an Arbitration Provision)?

    Third Circuit Vacates Judgment for Insurer on Alleged Construction Defect Claim

    Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

    Kiewit-Turner Stops Work on VA Project—Now What?

    Women in Construction Aren’t Silent Anymore. They Are Using TikTok to Battle Discrimination

    Congratulations to Partner Nicole Whyte on Being Chosen to Receive The 2024 ADL’s Marcus Kaufman Jurisprudence Award

    Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Area Variance Standard; Property Owners May Obtain an Area Variance When Special Circumstances Existed at Purchase

    AIA Releases State-Specific Waiver and Release Forms

    Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

    #3 CDJ Topic: Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Stormy Seas Ahead: 5th Circuit to Review Whether Maritime Law Applies to Offshore Service Contract

    French Government Fines National Architects' Group $1.6M Over Fee-Fixing

    Not so Fast – Florida’s Legislature Overrules Gindel’s Pre-Suit Notice/Tolling Decision Related to the Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Citigroup Pays Record $697 Million for Hong Kong Office Tower

    Burden Supporting Termination for Default

    Construction Defect Reform Bill Passes Colorado Senate

    Road to Record $199 Million Award Began With Hunch on Guardrails

    Manhattan Home Sales Rise at Slower Pace as Prices Jump

    Illinois Court Addresses Coverage Owed For Subcontractor’s Defective Work

    An Obligation to Provide Notice and an Opportunity to Cure May not End after Termination, and Why an Early Offer of Settlement Should Be Considered on Public Works Contracts

    Recording a Lis Pendens Is Crucial

    Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

    Certifying Claim Under Contract Disputes Act

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    Impasse Over Corruption Charges Costs SNC $3.7 Billion, CEO Says

    Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures

    Developer Transition – Washington DC Condominiums

    Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    It Was a Wild Week for Just About Everyone. Ok, Make that Everyone.

    WSHB Ranks No.10 in Law360’s Best of Law Firms for Women

    While Starts Fall, Builder Confidence and Permits are on the Rise
    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. Drawing 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

    Will Millennial’s Desire for Efficient Spaces Kill the McMansion?

    September 10, 2014 —
    Builder Magazine reported that millennials are currently “inhabiting high-tech, yet cozy student housing and apartments” without having “outsized space expectations,” however, that may change over the next ten years as “their preference for the walkable convenience that often accompanies smaller living spaces will collide head on with their parents’ (and grandparents’) insatiable addiction for square footage.” Regardless, builders may decide to change based upon a younger generation that accepts “efficient spaces.” According to Builder Magazine, Nick Lenhert, executive director at architectural firm KTGY, argued that the young “don’t really want what mom and dad have until they get married. Then all of a sudden things start to revert. They start getting realistic about what they need for the children and what they need for themselves. [Right now,] Gen Y is used to living in small spaces or with roommates because that’s all they can afford.” However, John Thatch, principal and director of design at the architectural and planning firm Dahlin Group, believes that even as millennials get older and conceivably need greater square footage, there is still a possibility that their tendency toward efficient spaces will continue: “I’m hoping this is the generation [that pulls in house size] because our generation went gigantic. It’s a chance for architects to get back to design smaller, more thoughtful spaces that are flexible.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Property Insurance Exclusion for Constant or Repeated Leakage of Water

    March 14, 2018 —
    A property insurance policy, no different than any insurance policy, contains exclusions for events that are NOT covered under the terms of the policy. One such common exclusion in a property insurance policy is an exclusion for damages caused by "constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water…over a period of 14 or more days." The application of this exclusion was discussed in the recent opinion of Hicks v. American Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D446a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). In this case, while the insured was out of town, the water line to his refrigerator started to leak. When the insured return home over a month later, the supply line was discharging almost a thousand gallons of water per day. The insured submitted a property insurance claim. The property insurer engaged a consultant that opined (likely, correctly) that the water line had been leaking for at least five weeks. Based on the above-mentioned exclusion, i.e., that water had been constantly leaking for over a period of 14 days, the insurer denied coverage. This denial led to the inevitable coverage dispute. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Jinx: Third Circuit Rules in Favor of Teamsters in Withdrawal Case

    July 28, 2018 —
    Bad omen. Last week, I wrote about a Appeals Court decision that affirmed a contractor’s escape from an over $600,000 withdrawal liability assessment from the Laborers Union. The next day the Third Circuit (which covers PA, NJ, and DE) handed down a decision affirming a federal court’s decision to assess withdraw liability. This one shows the dark side of not reading and understanding your CBA. The belligerents in the litigation were, Penn Jersey, a construction material supplier, and Teamsters Local 676. Their collective bargaining agreement contained a clause purportedly covering withdrawal liability. Specifically, the clause stated “should the Employer withdraw from the Agreement in the future, there will be no withdrawal liability. The CBA expired and Penn Jersey did not renew its agreement with the Teamsters. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    New York Appellate Court Expands Policyholders’ Ability to Plead and Seek Consequential Damages

    February 27, 2019 —
    In a huge win for policyholders, a New York appellate court, in D.K. Property, Inc. v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., held that an insured need not provide a detailed factual description or explanation for why consequential damages are recoverable at the pleading stage. Rather, an insured’s complaint must only (i) specify the types of consequential damages claimed; and (ii) allege that those damages reasonably were contemplated by the parties prior to contracting. Here, D.K. Property’s building was damaged as a result of construction on an adjoining building, and it timely filed a claim with National Union under a policy that covers “direct physical loss or damage to” the building. National Union neither paid the claim nor disclaimed coverage. Instead, according to D.K. Property, National Union made unreasonable and increasingly burdensome information demands over a three-year period, which it alleges was a “tactic” to make pursuing the claim so expensive that D.K. Property would abandon the claim. As a result of the delay, D.K. Property alleges the structural damage to its building has worsened. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joshua S. Paster, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mediating Contract Claims and Disputes at the ASBCA

    December 20, 2021 —
    The Contract Disputes Act establishes the formal process for resolving nearly all claims and disputes that arise under federal government contracts. It is the source of the requirement that contractors certify claims in excess of $100,000, the contracting officer’s final decision and the deadlines for bringing a dispute to the court of federal claims or an agency board of contract appeals. It is also the source of the federal government’s authority to use mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. Here are six key factors contractors should know about mediating contract claims and disputes at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA). 1. The Parties Control the Parameters of ADR Proceedings Many commercial contracts and court rules require mediation of every dispute. There is no settlement meeting, mediation or any other type of mandatory ADR proceedings in cases brought to the ASBCA. The parties control the process, and they may adopt any approach to ADR that they believe will be effective. Mediation is nevertheless voluntary. Without the agreement of both parties, it won’t happen. Reprinted courtesy of Brian Waagner, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

    January 06, 2020 —
    The federal courts have recently decided two significant Clean Water Act (CWA) cases: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler, where the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia held that the 2015 rulemaking proceeding of EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers redefining the term “Waters of the United States” in the CWA violated the Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. v. Glaser, where the appeals court ruled that the lower court erroneously interpreted a CWA NPDES permitting exception involving agricultural return flows. An Absence of Navigability: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler Decided on August 21, 2019, the district court, one of the few courts to grapple with the rule’s compliance with the CWA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), held that the agencies’ redefinition of the terms “Interstate Waters,” “Tributaries” and “Adjacent Waters” violated the CWA by reading “navigability” out of the new definitions, or by failing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s rulings in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States, in particular Justice Kennedy’s concurrence regarding the application of the “significant nexus” in case-by-case adjudications as to whether a particular body of water was covered by the Act. Moreover, some provisions of the rule conflicted with the APA because they were not a logical outgrowth of the rules proposed by the agencies in 2014, and on which they solicited comments, and other determinations were not supported by a reasonable explanation. In addition, without a clear statement from Congress that it supported the rule’s effect of increasing the nature and extent of enhanced federal jurisdiction over waters subject to the CWA, the court was loathe to approve the rule. Accordingly, the rule was remanded to the agencies for additional review consistent with this decision. This decision is of particular importance as it may well be the first case to subject this new EPA rule—the linchpin of much of EPA’s regulation under the CWA—to extended review. (Other courts have only been asked to enjoin the rule, which involves a different type of review.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Ruling Finds Builder and Owners at Fault in Construction Defect Case

    December 30, 2013 —
    A Minnesota home owners association has been found 30liable for some of the damage to their homes in a jury trial. The Interlachen Propertyowners Association made a claim of construction defects against Keupers Architects and Builders who had constructed the 24-unit town home complex. According to the association’s lawyer, the half-log siding was improperly installed, leading to water intrusion and rot. The jury did find for the homeowners on the construction defect claim, but found on a claim of negligent repairs that the association was 30% at fault, due to insufficient maintenance of the building. “We don’t think any amount of maintenance would have saved these buildings,” said Jason Tarasek, the lawyer for the association. The association is likely to appeal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Best Practices for ESI Collection in Construction Litigation

    October 05, 2020 —
    The construction business has always been heavy on records and data but now more than ever much of that information is stored electronically. Gone are the days of just a trailer full of drawings and paper documents. Construction projects now have huge amounts of electronically stored information (ESI) including contract documents; drawings in both CAD, PDF and other formats; schedule files such as Primavera; spreadsheets; photos; job cost control software files; formal correspondence; and an ever-expanding amount of email communications. Successful collection of this ESI can be critical to the success of litigation in construction cases, where often very complex facts will need to be gathered to support a claim or defense. The best first step to a successful ESI collection is to build a solid foundation before trouble arises with prepared policies and procedures in place. Implementing and enforcing a document management plan on a project basis will make sure documents are kept in an organized fashion so that materials can be accessed quickly and easily. Document management is important for types of ESI that are not handled well by word-searches, including Primavera schedules, photos and videos. Reprinted courtesy of Kelley J. Halliburton, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of