BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimony
    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


    Florida District Court Finds That “Unrelated” Design Errors Sufficient to Trigger “Related Claims” Provision in Architects & Engineers Policy

    Introducing Nomos LLP!

    2021 Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On [UPDATED]

    Serving the 558 Notice of Construction Defect Letter in Light of the Statute of Repose

    China Home Glut May Worsen as Developers Avoid Price Drop

    Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 – Expert Testimony

    Don’t Put All Your Eggs in the Silent-Cyber Basket

    Kaylin Jolivette Named LADC's Construction and Commercial Practice Chair

    Mechanics Lien Release Bond – What Happens Now? What exactly is a Mechanics Lien and Why Might it Need to be Released?

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Rises for First Time in Two Years

    Corps, State Agencies Prep for Flood Risks From California Snowmelt Runoff

    Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

    DC Circuit Approves, with Some Misgivings, FERC’s Approval of the Atlantic Sunrise Natural Gas Pipeline Extension

    Government’s Termination of Contractor for Default for Failure-To-Make Progress

    Indemnity Clauses That Conflict with Oregon Indemnity Statute Can Remain Partially Valid and Enforceable

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their Houston Office

    Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”

    More on the VCPA and Construction

    Five Reasons to Hire Older Workers—and How to Keep Them

    When it Comes to Trials, it’s Like a Box of Chocolates. Sometimes You Get the Icky Cream Filled One

    Don’t Sign a Contract that Doesn’t Address Covid-19 (Or Pandemics and Epidemics)

    Five Keys to Driving Digital Transformation in Engineering and Construction

    California Rejects Judgments By Confession Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1132

    Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit

    General Contractor’s Excess Insurer Denied Equitable Contribution From Subcontractor’s Excess Insurer

    Locating Construction Equipment with IoT and Mobile Technology

    Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

    How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law

    A Call to Washington: Online Permitting Saves Money and the Environment

    Eighth Circuit Considers Judicial Estoppel in Hazardous Substance Release-Related Personal Injury Case

    Homebuilding in Las Vegas Slows but Doesn’t Fall

    With an Eye Already in the Sky, Crane Camera Goes Big Data

    A New Study: Unexpected Overtime is Predictable and Controllable

    Judgment Proof: Reducing Litigation Exposure with Litigation Risk Insurance

    You Cannot Always Contract Your Way Out of a Problem (The Case for Dispute Resolution in Mega and Large Complex Construction Projects)

    Timely Legal Trends and Developments for Construction

    Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Matching of Materials Decided by Appraisers

    Apartments pushed up US homebuilding in September

    Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose

    First Circuit: No Coverage, No Duty to Investigate Alleged Loss Prior to Policy Period

    Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

    Professional Malpractice Statute of Limitations in Construction Context

    California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens

    Heathrow Tempts Runway Opponents With $1,200 Christmas Sweetener

    What to Know Before Building a Guesthouse

    Alarm Cries Wolf in California Case Involving Privette Doctrine

    Traub Lieberman Senior Trial Counsel Timothy McNamara Wins Affirmation of Summary Judgment Denial

    2018 Super Bowl US. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis

    The Privacy Shield Is Gone: How Do I Now Move Data from the EU to the US

    Indemnity Clauses—What do they mean, and what should you be looking for?
    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

    Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial

    April 09, 2014 —
    In a recent hearing regarding the Cleveland, Ohio case Stonebridge Towers Homeowners v K&D Group, Judge John O’Donnell scheduled a trial for May 28th. Lead attorney for the homeowners stated that they would settle for “ten million and change,” according to The Plain Dealer. However, an attorney for K&D Group retorted that “the damaged condos could be fixed for much less money.” “The lawsuit claims negligent design, poor construction and multiple defects resulted from fraud and bribe-paying by the developers,” reported Plain Dealer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nonresidential Construction Employment Expands in August, Says ABC

    December 16, 2019 —
    The construction industry added 14,000 net new jobs in August, according to an Associated Builders and Contractors analysis of data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. On a year-over-year basis, industry employment has expanded by 177,000 jobs, or 2.4%. Nonresidential construction employment increased by 11,600 net jobs in August and is up by 114,200 net jobs over the last 12 months, translating into 2.5% growth. The majority of job gains emerged from nonresidential specialty trade contractors, which added 5,400 jobs last month and nearly 103,000 positions over the past year. Heavy and civil engineering added 4,400 net new jobs, while nonresidential building added 1,800 jobs on a monthly basis. The construction unemployment rate stood at 3.6% in August, up 0.2 percentage points from the same time last year. Unemployment across all industries stood at 3.7% in August, unchanged from the previous month. “While job growth across all industries fell short of projections, today’s employment report was just about perfect,” said ABC Chief Economist Anirban Basu. “Yes, employment growth has been softening for quite some time, with average monthly job growth totaling 150,000 during the last six months after approaching 200,000 during the prior six-month period. And employment growth estimates were also revised lower for both June and July. That said, looking beyond the headline number, August’s labor market performance was more than respectable, even accounting for about 25,000 of the jobs being added for temporary Census work. Reprinted courtesy of ABC, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor

    February 10, 2020 —
    Nationwide, homeowners’ insurers routinely face foundation wall collapse claims. But in Connecticut, where at least 30,000 homes are believed to have been constructed in the 1980s and 1990s with defective concrete, the scope of homeowners insurance for collapse claims has been a closely watched issue. In Jemiola v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2019 WL 5955904 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019), the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a collapse coverage grant requiring “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose” is unambiguous and enforceable. In Jemiola, the insured homeowner purchased her home in 1986 and insured it continuously with the same insurer. In 2006, the homeowner noticed cracking in a basement wall, and was informed that the cracking likely resulted from defective concrete used in the construction of the home. The homeowner made a claim under her policy’s collapse coverage, which the insurer denied because the cracking did not compromise the structural integrity of the foundation walls. In the resulting lawsuit, the insured’s expert opined that the defective concrete substantially impaired the foundation walls’ structural integrity, but that this impairment did not commence until 2006 when the homeowner first noticed the cracking. Accordingly, the court analyzed coverage under the collapse coverage grant in effect in 2006, which defined collapse to mean “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com

    Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling

    February 01, 2021 —
    A South Florida restaurant has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a federal district court’s ruling that the restaurant is not entitled to coverage under an “all risk” commercial property insurance policy for lost income and extra expenses resulting from nearby road construction. In the underlying coverage action, the policyholder, Mama Jo’s (operating as Berries in the Grove), sought coverage under its all-risk policy for business income losses and expenses caused by construction dust and debris that migrated into the restaurant. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari, the case will be closely watched by insurers and policyholders alike as an indicator of the scope of coverage available under all-risk policies and whether the principles pertinent to construction dust and debris (at issue in Mama Jo’s claim) have any application to the thousands of pending claims for COVID-19-related business interruption losses pending in the state and federal court systems. As previously discussed on this blog, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision deviates from Florida precedent on the issue of “direct physical loss” and even its own understanding of that term as described in the August 18, 2020 decision now at issue before the Supreme Court. Mama Jo’s points to this in its petition along with several other errors arguing, for example, that the appellate court’s ruling renders entire areas of coverage nonexistent by requiring “tangible destruction” of property under all-risk policies that expressly afford coverage for types of clean-up costs required to remove debris from covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts

    November 27, 2013 —
    Construction defect claims are governed by a section of the Massachusetts laws and allow for three years after the work was completed, unless the defect is “inherently unknowable,” according to a post by John Shaffer on the web site of his firm, Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, a New England law firm that specializes in condominium law. Those “inherently unknowable” defects fall into the six-year statute of repose. If, for example, a roof doesn’t show “significant water leakage” until after the end of the statutory period, “the association is out of luck and the responsible parties are off the hook,” writes Mr. Shaffer. “Even if the association could prove conclusively that the roof was improperly constructed and caused significant damage, the association’s claim will be barred.” One problem condominium associations can face is that defects in the earliest phases of building can sometimes become apparent while the developer still controls the board. “While a developer in control of a board has the same fiduciary obligation as owner-elected trustees to protect the association’s interests, it is probably safe to assume that few developers will be inclined to sue themselves.” Here, Mr. Shaffer notes that owners can join together and either “hasten the transition to owner control of the association” or “convince them to correct the identified deficiencies.” Mr. Shaffer notes that some questions concerning the statute of repose haven’t been answered by the Massachusetts courts. He does assure readers that “developers will no doubt argue that the statute of limitations has expired on defects because the association discovered or ‘should have discovered’ their existence more than three years before the lawsuit was started.” He advises condominium associations to calculate “their filing deadlines as conservatively as possible.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Companies Move to Houston Area and Spur Home Building

    December 30, 2013 —
    A number of companies are developing commercial properties in the Kingwood area of the Houston metropolitan region and that’s spurring residential development as well. According to the Houston Chronicle, a number of key industries will be moving the area. And it’s leading to a lot of residential and commercial development. The 4,000-acre mixed-use development Generation Park will include offices, hotels, shops, and other amenities. But an important part of its success is expected to come from the adjacent master-planned community, Summerwood. Another development, Kingwood Parc City Center will include retail, restaurants, a movie theater, and office space. Other development in the Kingwood area includes a $71 million addition to the Kingwood Medical Center. The new tower will specialize in services for women and infants. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    LA Wildfires Push California Insurance Market to Its Limit

    January 14, 2025 —
    If you live in California, you’re always bracing for the Big One. This week it arrived in the form of uncontrollable flames. Liability experts equipped with climate models had been uneasily eyeing such a scenario, realizing in recent years that wildfire now had similar system-crashing potential as a major earthquake to upend lives and destabilize California’s $10 trillion residential property market. A group convened to examine worst-case scenarios determined that three specific areas in the state were particularly vulnerable and capable of causing far-reaching fallout. One was Pacific Palisades, the Los Angeles neighborhood reduced to ashes this week by one of at least five fires burning across the city. Reprinted courtesy of Leslie Kaufman, Bloomberg, Lauren Rosenthal, Bloomberg, Michelle Ma, Bloomberg and Alexandre Rajbhandari, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Miller Law Firm Helped HOA Recover for Construction Defects without Filing a Lawsuit

    July 16, 2014 —
    According to a press release published on the PR Newswire, The Miller Law Firm “recovered $910,000 for the 1635 California Owners' Association for construction defects without ever filing a complaint.” William Nagle, Special Master & Mediator, facilitated the settlement “a year after putting the builder on notice under SB 800, California’s Right to Repair Law.” “Independent forensic expert inspections revealed building standard violations ranging from improperly installed gutters resulting in water intrusion in the units project wide, active leaks, standing water and inadequate gutters resulting in staining and efflorescence on the garage walls, balcony, and tile grout, discoloration and extensive cracking in the stucco project wide, inadequate weather stripping with evidence of condensation staining at windows, window frames and adjacent paint, inadequate ventilation, and ADA violations including loose glass guardrails and in regards to accessible rooftop common areas,” according to the press release. “This case settled prior to any formal mediation and I credit the diligence of both the Association and builder counsel,” Nagle stated. “Tom Miller is one of the most knowledgeable and respected plaintiffs' lawyers in the construction defect area. And I compliment both counsel on their preparation and cost-effective handling of the case in reaching a fair and reasonable result for their respective clients." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of