BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    California’s Right to Repair Act not an Exclusive Remedy

    Jason Smith and Teddie Arnold Co-Author Updated “United States – Construction” Chapter in 2024 Legal 500: Country Comparative Guides

    Construction Firm Settles Suit Over 2012 Calif. Wildfire

    Illinois Lawmakers Approve Carpenters Union's Legislation to Help Ensure Workers Are Paid What They're Owed

    NLRB Finalizes Rule for Construction Industry Unions to Obtain Majority Support Representational Status

    Public Policy Prevails: Homebuilders and Homebuyers Cannot Agree to Disclaim Implied Warranty of Habitability in Arizona

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds Lay Witness Can Provide Opinion Testimony on the Value of a Property If the Witness Had an Opportunity to Form a Reasoned Opinion

    Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007

    Amazon Hits Pause on $2.5B HQ2 Project in Arlington, Va.

    What is a Subordination Agreement?

    McGraw Hill to Sell off Construction-Data Unit

    The Credibility of Your Expert (Including Your Delay Expert) Matters in Construction Disputes

    Owners Bound by Arbitration Clause on Roofing Shingles Packaging

    Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

    Scientists found a way to make Cement Greener

    Job Growth Seen as Good News for North Carolina Housing Market

    Homeowners Not Compelled to Arbitration in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Hurricane Claim Cannot Survive Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Texas Supreme Court to Rehear Menchaca Bad Faith Case

    Chinese Millionaire Roils Brokers Over Shrinking Mansion

    Are Millennials Finally Moving Out On Their Own?

    Colorado Legislative Update: HB 20-1155, HB 20-1290, and HB 20-1348

    Cutting the Salt Out: Tips for Avoiding Union Salting Charges

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Fastball Right to the Bean!”

    New Insurance Case: Owners'​ Insurance Barred in Reimbursement Action against Tenant

    Warranty Reform Legislation for Condominiums – Unfair Practices used by Developers and Builders to avoid Warranty Responsibility for Construction Defects in Newly Constructed Condominiums

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Faster Pace in January

    Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty

    Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings

    My Employees Could Have COVID-19. What Now?

    Construction Defects Up Price and Raise Conflict over Water Treatment Expansion

    Construction Firms Complain of Missed Payments on Redevelopment Project

    Hirer Liable for Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Due to Failure to Act, Not Just Affirmative Acts, Holds Court of Appeal

    Rhode Island Closes One Bridge and May Have Burned Others with Ensuing Lawsuit

    Protect Workers From Falls: A Leading Cause of Death

    Recent Developments Involving Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington

    COVID-19 Response: California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board Implements Sweeping New Regulations to Prevent COVID-19 in the Workplace

    Newmeyer & Dillion Welcomes Three Associates to Newport Beach Office

    In Review: SCOTUS Environmental and Administrative Decisions in the 2020 Term

    "Ordinance or Law" Provision Mandates Coverage for Roof Repair

    Amos Rex – A Museum for the Digital Age

    Utah Becomes First State to Enact the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act

    A Few Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On in 2023 (UPDATED)

    Insured's Claim for Cyber Coverage Rejected

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 3- The Last Straw

    Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

    Enforcement Of Contractual Terms (E.G., Flow-Down, Field Verification, Shop Drawing Approval, And No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions)

    Subcontractors Eye 2022 with Guarded Optimism

    Contractors and Force Majeure: Contractual Protection from Hurricanes and Severe Weather

    Does a Broker Forfeit His or Her Commission for Technical Non-Compliance with Department of Real Estate Statutory Requirements?
    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

    Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?

    January 24, 2018 —
    The ruling is in but the battle will likely continue over the practical application of SB 800. On January 18, 2018 the California Supreme Court issued its decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __, holding that the statutory prelitigation scheme in The Right to Repair Act (“the Act”) that provides for notice and an opportunity for the Builder to repair defects applies to all claims for construction defects in residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003, regardless whether the claim is founded on a violation of the Act’s performance standards or a common law claim for negligence or strict liability. (McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __.) With this holding, has the Court ruled that common law causes of action for construction defect still survive? If so, what will they look like and what standards will be applied? The short answer is that it appears that common law causes of action still survive, at least for now, but it is not clear from this decision what they will look like and what standards will apply. Portions of the decision seem to suggest that the Act is the sole and exclusive remedy for construction defect claims: “…even in some areas where the common law had supplied a remedy for construction defects resulting in property damage but not personal injury, the text and legislative history [of the statute] reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions under the Act.” (McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 6].) (Italics added for emphasis) However, at the end of the decision, the Court seems to be saying that there may still be a place for common law claims for negligence and strict liability alongside the Act but that these causes of action may be subject to the performance standards in the Act. The McMillin case went up to the Supreme Court on a procedural issue: whether a common law action alleging construction defects resulting in both economic loss and property damage is subject to the Act’s prelitigation notice and cure procedures. The Van Tassels had dismissed their claims under the Act opting to proceed solely on their common law claims including negligence and strict liability. McMillin sought a stay to force the Van Tassels to comply with the Act’s prelitigation procedures. The Supreme Court held that the Van Tassels must comply with the statutory procedures and affirmed the stay issued by the trial court. But the question remained: now that the Van Tassels were left only with common law claims, how would they proceed under the Act? To understand how the Court dealt with this question, one must first understand how the Court dealt with the narrow procedural question presented by the case. The Court provides a very detailed, clear explanation of the reasons why it felt the Legislature intended for all construction defect claims involving residential construction must comply with the prelitigation requirements of the Act. In summing up its conclusions the Court makes three definitive holdings. First, for claims involving economic loss only—the kind of claims involved in Aas—the Court holds that the Legislature intended to supersede Aas and provide a statutory basis for recovery. (McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 10].) In other words, the Court clearly agrees that the Act was meant to allow recovery of damages based solely on economic damages. No surprise there. Second, the Court held for personal injuries, the Legislature made no changes to existing law that provides common law remedies for the injured party. (Id.) Nobody has ever contested that. Finally, the Court held that for construction defect claims involving property damage and not just economic loss “the Legislature replaced the common law methods of recovery with the new statutory scheme.” (Id.,) (Italics added for emphasis.) In other words, the Court is not saying that negligence and strict liability are not permitted causes of action. The Court is merely stating that these causes of action must comply with the Act’s statutory scheme just as the same as a claim for economic loss. Here the Court is focusing on the procedure that must be followed. “The Act, in effect, provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying claims gave rise to any property damage.” (Id.) Having laid out its fundamental premise, the Court then deals with Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the intent of the Legislature and makes light work of them all. In the process, the Court disapproves Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 98, and Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 1411, to the extent they are inconsistent with the views expressed in the McMillin opinion. This is where the decision gets interesting. The Court reminds us that the Van Tassels had dismissed their statutory causes of action for violation of the performance standards under Section 896. One would think at that point that Plaintiffs had to be wondering if they had any claims left given that the Court had ruled that the Act was the sole means of recovery for construction defects. Not so fast. The Court points out that the complaint still rests on allegations of defective construction and that the suit remains an “ ‘action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction’ of the plaintiffs’ homes (§896) and McMillin’s liability under the Van Tassels’ negligence and strict liability claims depends on the extent to which it [McMillin] violated the standards of sections 896 and 897.” (McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Emphasis added.) WHAT DID THE COURT JUST SAY? Did the Court just say that a plaintiff could bring a common law cause of action for negligence or strict liability based on a violation of the performance standards under Section 896? What exactly would that claim look like? What would be the elements of such a cause of action? To answer these questions, the Court states in the very next paragraph, which also happens to be the last paragraph in the decision: “In holding that claims seeking recovery for construction defect damages are subject to the Act’s prelitigation procedures regardless of how they are pleaded, we have no occasion to address the extent to which a party might rely upon common law principles in pursuing liability under the Act.” (McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Italics added for emphasis) Is the Court answering “No” to the questions posed above? Probably not. It is simply following the age old rule that an appellate court will not rule on an issue that is not specifically presented by an appeal, leaving that question for another day. All we know for sure from McMillin is that every claim for construction defects falling within the scope of the Act must follow the prelitigation procedure. There are no hall passes for negligence and strict liability. The larger question posed by the last two paragraphs in the decision, is whether the law recognizes a cause of action for negligence and strict liability for construction defects based on the standards in Section 896. The answer will have to be worked out by judges and trial attorneys in courtrooms across the State! The parameters of this hybrid cause of action that the Court seems to have posited will need more careful consideration than can be offered on first reading of McMillin v. Superior Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Balestreri, Potocki, & Holmes

    Reconstructing the Francis Scott Key Bridge Utilizing the Progressive Design-Build Method

    June 04, 2024 —
    Having awakened on the morning of March 26 to the devastating news of the collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge after being struck by the Dali, a 984 length /52 beam foot cargo container ship, I thought of the many times I crossed the bridge as a child growing up in Washington, D.C. I also recalled Montgomery Schyler’s comments on the opening of the Brooklyn Bridge, when he stated that “the work which is likely to be our most durable monument, and to convey some knowledge of us to the most remote posterity, is a work of bare utility; not a shrine, not a fortress, not a palace, but a bridge.” I thought of the beauty of New York’s Mario Cuomo Bridge, a 3.1-mile cable-stayed twin-span bridge with eight traffic lanes, bicycle and pedestrian paths, six lookout points and room for future rapid transit. It was completed in 2018 and constructed under a design-build procurement model[i] at a cost of $3.98 billion. Accelerated bridge construction (ABC) techniques were utilized in its construction. ABC techniques employ innovative planning, design, materials, and construction methods in a safe and cost-effective manner to reduce the on-site construction time that occurs when building new bridges or replacing and rehabilitating existing ones. ABC techniques improve site constructability, total project delivery time, work-zone safety for the traveling public and traffic impacts, on-site construction time, and weather-related time delays.[ii] I also thought of the gracefulness of Boston’s Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge, a 0.27-mile hybrid cable-stayed steel and concrete bridge with pedestrian and bicycle access that holds 10 lanes of traffic. The Zakim Bridge was completed in 2004 at a cost of approximately $100 million as part of the $24.3 billion Big Dig.[iii] Despite its elegant, streamlined appearance, the bridge was designed to be exceptionally strong, withstand winds over 400 miles per hour and endure a magnitude 7.9 earthquake.[iv] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lisa D. Love, JAMS

    Texas Jury Finds Presence of SARS-CoV-2 Virus Causes “Physical Loss or Damage” to Property, Awards Over $48 Million to Baylor College of Medicine

    September 26, 2022 —
    A Texas jury has found that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus on the property of Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) caused “physical loss or damage” and resulting economic loss, triggering coverage under BCM’s commercial property insurance program. The jury awarded BCM over $48 million following a three-day trial; the award consisted of $42.8 million in business interruption, $3.3 million in extra expense, and $2.3 million in damage to research projects. The verdict came after the court denied the insurers’ pre-trial motion for summary judgment, rejecting the insurers’ contention that a virus cannot—as a matter of law—cause physical loss or damage to property. In denying the motion, the court held that whether the presence of the virus causes physical loss or damage presents a question of fact for the jury to resolve; a copy of the order rejecting the insurers’ summary judgment argument can be found here. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    5 Ways Equipment Financing is Empowering Small Construction Businesses

    August 24, 2017 —
    Small construction businesses can often get 100% equipment financing, eliminating the down payment, and freeing up cash, according to the Equipment Leasing and Finance Association (ELFA). Most small businesses need equipment in order to operate and grow, and each business must decide on an acquisition strategy that is right for it. But, a majority of businesses turn to equipment leasing and financing so they can take advantage of a range of benefits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Duane Craig, Construction Informer
    Mr. Craig may be contacted at dtcraig@constructioninformer.com

    Port Authority Revises Plans for $10B Midtown NYC Bus Terminal Replacement

    March 04, 2024 —
    New York City's Midtown Manhattan bus terminal replacement project advanced last week after the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey released a draft environmental impact statement and a revised project plan based on feedback from commuters, residents and local officials. Reprinted courtesy of Marigo Farr, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pending Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Decline for Eighth Month

    March 31, 2014 —
    Contracts to purchase previously owned U.S. homes unexpectedly fell in February for an eighth straight month, a sign of further weakness in the industry. The index of pending home sales decreased 0.8 percent after a 0.2 percent drop the prior month that was previously reported as a gain, figures from the National Association of Realtors showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 39 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 0.2 percent rise. Colder-than-normal weather probably played a role in discouraging prospective buyers faced with rising mortgage rates, higher prices and limited supply of cheaper properties. At the same time, the Realtors group said buyer traffic is stabilizing, which may help spur demand as temperatures warm. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shobhana Chandra, Bloomberg
    Ms. Chandra may be contacted at schandra1@bloomberg.net

    What to Look for in Subcontractor Warranty Endorsements

    February 03, 2020 —
    With increasing frequency in the construction defect cases we defend, we are seeing commercial general liability insurance policies with “subcontractor warranty” endorsements. Also known as contractor or subcontractor special conditions, these endorsements could have severe and negative consequences for builders that do not comply with their requirements. In researching for this article, I reviewed six different endorsements used by six different carriers, all of which contained some or all of the following requirements:
    • The builder must have signed subcontract agreements with its subcontractors that require subcontractors to hold harmless, i.e., defend and indemnify, the builder for “bodily injury” or “property damage” claims caused by their negligence.
    • The subcontractors must maintain their own insurance with limits equal to or greater than the limits in the builder’s own policy, with limits of at least $1 million per occurrence.
    • The subcontractors’ insurance must not exclude the work being performed for the builder, e.g., the excavator’s policy cannot exclude earth movement claims, the subcontractor’s policy cannot exclude residential construction.
    • The subcontractors must maintain their own workers’ compensation and/or employer’s liability insurance.
    • The subcontractors must provide the builder with an endorsement or a certificate of insurance indicating that the builder has been added to the subcontractors’ insurance as an additional insured.
    • The subcontractors must provide the builder with an endorsement or a certificate of insurance indicating that their insurance carriers have agreed to provide waivers of subrogation in favor of the builder.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit

    December 13, 2021 —
    On November 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was selected during the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s lottery to hear the multiple consolidated challenges to the recent COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA is permitted to issue an ETS if the agency arrives at the conclusion that a “grave danger” to worker safety exists. An ETS does not go through the typical notice-and-comment period that federal regulations usually follow. Inheriting the Fifth Circuit’s recent nationwide stay on implementation and enforcement of the ETS, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether the stay should be “modified, revoked, or extended” in the short term. Early this morning, OSHA filed an emergency motion to dissolve the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the vaccine mandate with the Sixth Circuit. OSHA argued, among other things:
    • The Fifth Circuit erred in holding “that OSHA lacked statutory authority to address the grave danger of COVID-19 in the place on the ground that COVID-19 is caused by a virus and also exists outside of the workplace” because “[t]hat rationale has no basis in the statutory text.”
    • The Fifth Circuit erred in finding the ETS both over- and underinclusive because “OSHA recounted extensive empirical data showing that all employees can transmit COVID-19 in the workplace and that COVID-19 has spread in a vast variety of workplace.”
    • The “petitioners have not shown that their claimed injuries outweigh the interests in protecting employees from a dangerous virus while this litigation proceeds . . . . These claimed injuries do not justify delaying the [ETS] that will save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of George Morrison, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Morrison may be contacted at morrisong@whiteandwilliams.com