BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling 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


    Seattle Crane Strike Heads Into Labor Day Weekend After Some Contractors Sign Agreements

    Avoid Delay or Get Ready to Pay: The Risks of “Time-Is-of-The-Essence” Clauses

    Join: Computer Science Meets Construction

    Learning from Production Homes of the Past

    Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    Summary Findings of the Fourth National Climate Assessment

    Urban Retrofits, Tall Buildings, and Sustainability

    Home Prices Rose in Fewer U.S. Markets in Fourth Quarter

    California Statutes Authorizing Public-Private Partnership Contracting

    Balancing Cybersecurity Threats in Smart Cities: Is the Potential Convenience of “Smart” Intersections Worth the Risk?

    San Francisco Sues Over Sinking Millennium Tower

    Texas School System Goes to Court over Construction Defect

    Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

    New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Insurers’ Bid to Overturn a $400M Decision

    New Standard Addresses Wind Turbine Construction Safety Requirements and Identifies Hazards

    California Ranks As Leading State for Green Building in 2022

    NY Appellate Court Holds Common Interest Privilege Applies to Parties to a Merger

    The Death of Retail and Legal Issues

    What ‘The Curse’ Gets Wrong About Passive House Architecture

    US Homes Face Costly Retrofits for Induction Stoves, EV Chargers

    Court Affirms Summary Adjudication of Bad Faith Claim Where Expert Opinions Raised a Genuine Dispute

    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2024

    Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review Regarding Necessary Parties in Lien Foreclosure Actions

    Grupo Mexico Spill Sparks Public Scrutiny of $150 Million Mop-Up

    ICC/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Green Model Code Integrates Existing Standards

    Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void

    Connecting IoT Data to BIM

    Patagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar Panels

    Crossrail Audit Blames Busted Budget and Schedule on Mismanagement

    Carillion Fallout Affects Major Hospital Project in Liverpool

    Developer’s Failure to Plead Amount of Damages in Cross-Complaint Fatal to Direct Action Against Subcontractor’s Insurers Based on Default Judgment

    Addressing the Defective Stucco Crisis

    New York's Highest Court Says Asbestos Causation Requires Evidence Of Sufficient Exposure To Sustain Liability

    New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial

    Business and Professions Code Section 7031, Demurrers, and Just How Much You Can Dance

    I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

    How Does Weather Impact a Foundation?

    Interior Designer Licensure

    Construction Group Seeks Defense Coverage for Hard Rock Stadium Claims

    Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

    Working Safely With Silica: Health Hazards and OSHA Compliance

    CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Related Remedies – 2014 Update

    A Look at Trending Legislative Changes Impacting Workers' Comp

    Executing Documents with Powers of Attorney and Confessions of Judgment in PA Just Got Easier

    Chinese Millionaire Roils Brokers Over Shrinking Mansion

    The Importance of a Notice of Completion to Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers

    A Few Things You Might Consider Doing Instead of Binging on Netflix

    Court Finds Duty To Defend Environmental Claim, But Defense Limited to $100,000

    Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders
    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

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    February 21, 2013 —
    The Las Vegas Review-Journal is supporting efforts to reform the state’s construction defect laws. Although the intention was to “protect homeowners from the costs of shoddy workmanship,” they state the laws have instead “enriched lawyers and made housing more expensive.” The take the Las Vegas homeowner association scandal as a sign that reform is needed. A further sign of needed reform is that during a time when new home sales decreased, construction defect claims more than tripled. The editorial notes that “current law allows lawsuits to be brought for cosmetic imperfections that pose no risks.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Lien Attaches To Landlord’s Interest When Landlord Is Party To Tenant Improvement Construction Contract

    January 03, 2022 —
    If you are a landlord / lessor, then you want to maximize the protections afforded to you under Florida’s Lien Law in Florida Statute s. 713.10. These protections are designed to protect your property from liens for improvements performed by your tenant / lessee. The intent is that if you comply with s. 713.10, then a tenant improvement contractor’s recourse is against the leasehold interest, and NOT against the interest of the real property (or your interest as the landlord / lessor). Needless to say, it is imperative that a landlord / lessor make efforts to comply with this section when a tenant is performing tenant improvements, even when the landlord is contributing money to those improvements. Section 713.10 provides in material part:
    (1) Except as provided in s. 713.12, a lien under this part shall extend to, and only to, the right, title, and interest of the person who contracts for the improvement as such right, title, and interest exists at the commencement of the improvement or is thereafter acquired in the real property. When an improvement is made by a lessee in accordance with an agreement between such lessee and her or his lessor, the lien shall extend also to the interest of such lessor.
    (2)(a) When the lease expressly provides that the interest of the lessor shall not be subject to liens for improvements made by the lessee, the lessee shall notify the contractor making any such improvements of such provision or provisions in the lease, and the knowing or willful failure of the lessee to provide such notice to the contractor shall render the contract between the lessee and the contractor voidable at the option of the contractor.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    English v. RKK. . . The Saga Continues

    December 16, 2019 —
    Remember back in 2018 when I thought I’d told you the end of the English Construction story regarding its various consultants, etc.? I was wrong. The matter went up on appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals where the Appeals Court considered the summary judgment granted to the defendant Rummel, Klepper & Kahl (“RKK”) based upon what came down to a contributory negligence reading of the indemnity clause that was allowed to survive in the first district court opinion relating to these ambiguous contracts finding that English was negligent so couldn’t recover. The 4th Circuit also considered the finding that defendant CDM Smith did not breach its contract as a matter of law and that English’s negligence was the cause of the damages. The Court of Appeals reversed both of the holdings by the Western District of Virginia court, essentially stating that there was enough of a factual dispute to render any summary judgment to be premature. As to English’s arguments regarding the indemnity scheme in the contracts, the court found that the interpretation was at least ambiguous enough that summary judgment was inappropriate, stating:
    While we are not prepared to settle conclusively these interpretation disputes at the summary judgment stage, English’s proffered interpretation is, at the very least. reasonable. Indeed, of the two interpretations, English’s seems to be more closely aligned with the actual language in the contract. The district court thus erred in rejecting English’s interpretation and adopting RK&K’s interpretation as a matter of law.
    [A]t bottom, while the district court was authorized to construe unambiguous language as a matter of law, it could not resolve genuine disputes regarding the meaning of ambiguous contractual language against the nonmoving party on summary judgment. We therefore vacate the court’s grant of summary judgment to RK&K and remand for further proceedings.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    New York City Council’s Carbon Emissions Regulation Opposed by Real Estate Board

    July 01, 2019 —
    On April 10, 2019, the New York City Council adopted Intro No. 1253 – the largest effort in a series of bills known as the Climate Mobilization Act. Intro No. 1253 enacts new regulations to reduce the city’s current largest source of carbon emissions – the operation of buildings. Jared Brey, in his April 25, 2019 article in U.S. News and World Report, “How an Evolving Movement Pushed NYC to Address the Climate Crisis,” states that “[i]n the city, around 70% of carbon emissions are produced by buildings, and around half of all building emissions are produced by just 2% of structures larger than 25,000 square feet that are covered by the bill.” The level of development, population density and relative economic power of a city such as New York have made this bill particularly interesting to other jurisdictions around the globe which may be considering their own similar legislation. In his article, Brey cites David Miller, a former mayor of Toronto and the North American regional director for C40, a group of cities coordinating strategies to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement:
    “I think what New York has done is globally significant … It’s really a huge step forward, using the city’s powers and influence to directly address a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions without waiting for the national government or the international community to act.”
    Several other jurisdictions have already begun to approach this issue, generally either by passing bills or creating task forces to further investigate how to meet stated emissions reduction goals. In 2018, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed an executive order with a stated goal of net-zero carbon emissions within the state by the year 2045. The California State Assembly subsequently passed a bill creating a task force to investigate the potential to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses by both commercial and residential buildings by 2030, although their plan is not due until January 1, 2021. The city of San Jose has implemented new building standards for all new residential buildings to be net-carbon neutral by 2020, and all new commercial buildings must be so by 2030. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kristen E. Andreoli, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com

    Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

    October 28, 2011 —

    The city of Fremont, Ohio and Arcadis have been sued by Trucco Construction. Trucco had been hired by the city to build a reservoir designed by Arcadis, the News-Messenger reports. Peter Welin, attorney for Trucco, said that he found “startling evidence of the company’s negligence” when he deposed Arcadis engineers. “This project could never be built the way they bid it.”

    Their suit alleges that Arcadis and the city were aware that the site was not conducive to construction and also that Arcadis failed to be a neutral party in discussions between Trucco and the city regarding compensation.

    Sam Wamper, an attorney for Fremont, said he was going to file a motion which would include “quite an interesting story,” but declined to elaborate.

    Read the full story...

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

    California Storm Raises Mudslide Risk, Closes Interstate

    January 28, 2025 —
    Southern California will clock a few more tense hours as showers continue to soak the burn-scarred landscape around Los Angeles. While the rains are helping fight wildfires that have killed at least 28 and destroyed more than 16,000 structures, they’re also raising the risk of deadly landslides and debris flows that can inundate a house with mud in seconds. A flood watch remains in force through 10 a.m. local time, the National Weather Service said. Skies over Los Angeles will start to clear Monday afternoon and Tuesday promises to be clear, the weather service said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian K Sullivan, Bloomberg

    Does the New Jersey Right-To-Repair Law Omit Too Many Construction Defects?

    January 06, 2012 —

    A post on the blog of Liberty Building Forensics Group find fault with the New Jersey Home Warranty and Builders’ Registration Act for not being stringent enough. The poster notes the coverage given under the bill. In the first year, builders are responsible to remedy faulty workmanship and materials and major structural defects. While other protections expire in the first or second year, there is a ten year coverage of major construction defects.

    The blogger finds fault with the exclusion New Jersey law places on these claims, arguing that “due to the stringent definition of ‘major construction defects,” the warranty affords no coverage unless the house is practically collapsing.” The bill excludes leaks, cracks, and mold, and further limits claims if the homeowner has failed to inform the builder or insurer of defects, failure to maintain the home, and alterations made by the homeowner.

    The intent of the New Jersey law is given as “requiring that newly constructed homes conform to certain construction and quality standards as well as to provide buyers of new homes with insurance-backed warranty protection in the event such standards are not met.” It’s argued in the piece that it instead serves to “strip homeowners of any meaningful means of recovery for discovered construction defects.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Summary Judgment for Insurer on Construction Defect Claim Reversed

    January 07, 2025 —
    The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's granting of summary judgment to the insurer on a construction defect claim asserted against the insured. TIG Ins. Co. v. Woodsboro Farmers Cooperative, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24003 (5th Cir. Sept. 20, 2024). In March 2013, Woodsboro Farmers Cooperative contracted with E.F. Erwin, Inc. to construct two Brock 105' diameter grain silos. Erwin hired subcontract AJ Constructors, Inc. (AJC) to construct the silos. Erwin was responsible for supervising the work. Brock silos were kits shipped by the manufacturer and then assembled according to the manufacturer's manuals and specifications. The silos are constructed section by section. AJC began erecting the silos in May 2013 and completed its work in June or early July. Erwin occasionally inspected the work and found the silos were structurally sound and not defective. AJC left the job site after completing the assembly. 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