BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction experts
    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


    Pancakes Decision Survives Challenge Before Hawaii Appellate Court

    Google, Environmentalists and University Push Methane-Leak Detection

    Massachusetts Judge Holds That Insurer Breached Its Duty To Defend Lawsuit After Chemical Spill

    Will COVID-19 Permanently Shift the Balance between Work from Home and the Workplace?

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Slower Pace in May

    2014 WCC Panel: Working Smarter with Technology

    Seyfarth Shaw’s Construction Group Receives Top Tier Recognition from Legal 500

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

    Deductibles Limited to Number of Suits Filed Against Insured, Not Number of Actual Plaintiffs

    Traub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp Obtain Summary Judgment in Favor of Residential Property Owners

    Project Delivery Methods: A Bird’s-Eye View

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Drones Used Despite Uncertain Legal Consequences

    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: LISA D. LOVE

    De-escalating The Impact of Price Escalation

    Policy's One Year Suit Limitation Does Not Apply to Challenging the Insurer's Claims Handling

    Force Majeure Recommendations

    Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements

    Florida Governor Bans Foreign Citizens From Buying Land in Florida

    Tenth Circuit Finds Appraisal Can Decide Causation of Loss Under Colorado Law

    The Importance of the Recent Amendment to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

    DOE Abruptly Cancels $13B Cleanup Award to BWXT-Fluor Team

    Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

    Mexico City Metro Collapse Kills 24 After Neighbors’ Warnings

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    CGL Policy Covering Attorney’s Fees in Property Damage Claims

    Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA

    The (Jurisdictional) Rebranding of The CDA’s Sum Certain Requirement

    These Are the 13 Cities Where Millennials Can't Afford a Home

    Insured's Testimony On Expectation of Coverage Deemed Harmless

    Construction Termination Issues Part 5: What if You are the One that Wants to Quit?

    Best U.S. Home Sales Since 2007 Show Momentum in Housing Market

    Legislative Update on Bills of Note (Updated Post-Adjournment)

    When to Withhold Retention Payments on Private or Public Projects

    Research Project Underway to Prepare Water Utilities for Wildfire Events

    Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games

    Federal Energy Regulator Approves Rule to Speed Clean Energy Grid Links

    After Pittsburgh Bridge Collapse, Fast-Rising Replacement Emerges

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Tightens Requirements for Co-Worker Affidavits in Asbestos Cases

    Update Your California Release Provisions to Include Amended Section 1542 Language

    High-Rise Condominium Construction Design Defects, A Maryland Construction Lawyer’s Perspective

    KONE is Shaking Up the Industry with BIM

    UPDATE: ACS Obtains Additional $13.6 Million for General Contractor Client After $19.2 Million Jury Trial Victory

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case

    Louisiana District Court Declines to Apply Total Pollution Exclusion

    S&P Suspended and Fined $80 Million in SEC, State Mortgage Bond Cases

    Anatomy of an Indemnity Provision

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Appeals Court Overruled Insured as Additional Insured on Subcontractor’s Commercial General Liability Policy

    Colorado Court of Appeals Defines “Substantial Completion” for Subcontractors’ Work so as to Shorten the Period of Time in Which They Can Be Sued
    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

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

    November 21, 2017 —
    Originally published by CDJ on August 30, 2017 On August 9th, in Sirrah Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Wunderlich, the Arizona Supreme Court settled the question about recovery of attorneys’ fees after prevailing on implied warranty claims against a residential contractor. The simple answer is, yes, a homeowner who prevails on the merits can recover the fees they spent to prove that shoddy construction breached the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. Why? Because, as Justice Timmer articulated, “[t]he implied warranty is a contract term.” Although implied, the warranty is legally part of the written agreement in which “a residential builder warrants that its work is performed in a workmanlike manner and that the structure is habitable.” In other words, a claim based on the implied warranty not only arises out of the contract, the claim is actually based on a contract term. Since, in A.R.S. § 12-341.01, Arizona law provides for prevailing parties to recover their fees on claims “arising out of contract” and because the implied warranty is now viewed by the courts as a contract term, homeowners can recover their fees after successfully proving breach of the implied warranty. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rick Erickson, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr Erickson may be contacted at rerickson@swlaw.com

    What Does It Mean When a House Sells for $50 Million?

    September 10, 2014 —
    One of the byproducts of the global financial crisis has been the creation of a new class of housing and buyers. Some of the strongest evidence is the rise in the number of residences sold for more than $50 million. A buyer recently paid a record $71.3 million for a Manhattan co-op, breaking the $70 million record set only a few months earlier. These sales seem modest compared with a $147 million sale in East Hampton, New York, and a $120 million sale in Greenwich, Connecticut, the two highest U.S. residential transactions in 2014. There have been six sales of more than $100 million in the past four years, with more likely to come. Wealthy investors have benefited from rising stock markets, while preserving capital by acquiring assets such as U.S. residential real estate. However, the high-end market isn't a proxy for the health of the broader U.S. housing market. Unlike the buyers in the market's upper strata, who often are foreign and all-cash purchasers, the majority of U.S. homebuyers remain dependent on access to credit. And today's tight lending conditions aren’t expected to ease anytime soon. According to the Federal Reserve, only a small number of banks have recently eased mortgage standards. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan J. Miller, Bloomberg
    Mr. Miller may be contacted at jmiller@millersamuel.com

    South Carolina Supreme Court Requires Transparency by Rejecting an Insurer’s “Cut-and-Paste” Reservation of Rights

    February 16, 2017 —
    In a decision rendered on January 11, 2017, the Supreme Court of South Carolina reminded policyholders that they are entitled to an explanation of any and all grounds upon which their insurer may be contesting coverage in a reservation of rights letter. Specifically, in Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc. et al., 1 the court found that an insurer’s reservation of rights, which included a verbatim recitation of numerous policy provisions that the court identified as the “cut-and-paste” method, was insufficient to reserve its rights to contest coverage. In 2003, Heritage Communities, Inc. (“Heritage”), a parent company of several corporate entities engaged in developing and constructing condominium complexes from 1997 to 2000, was sued by multiple property owners’ associations. The lawsuits sought actual and punitive damages against Heritage as a result of alleged construction defects, including building code violations, structural deficiencies, and significant water intrusion. During the period of construction, Heritage was insured by Harleysville Group Insurance (“Harleysville”) under several primary and excess general liability insurance policies. Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and H. Scott Williams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com Mr. Williams may be contacted at hsw@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Building a Case: Document Management for Construction Litigation

    October 07, 2019 —
    Success in construction litigation often turns less on counsel’s ability to craft legal arguments and more on counsel’s ability to gather, master and present the often complex set of facts underlying the case. In construction matters, most of the key facts are found in documents: contract documents, drawings, plans and specifications, schedules, submittals, progress reports, daily logs, change orders, invoices and payment records. Nowadays, these documents will almost certainly be created, exchanged and stored electronically; many will never exist in hard copy. As such, timely collection, organization and analysis of electronically stored information (ESI) is crucially important in construction litigation. The construction industry has always involved a large quantity of records. Today, the majority of those records exist only as ESI: Design professionals use computer-aided design (CAD) software to create construction plans. Construction managers use Primavera or similar software to create schedules and workflows. Estimators use job cost control programs. Innovative firms capture digital photos of the project, from mobilization through the punch process. Because ESI is created and exchanged at a higher rate than hard-copy documents, ESI has facilitated a dramatic increase in the volume of records associated with construction projects. Further compounding the increase is the proliferation of mobile devices. With a smartphone in every pocket, ESI creation has moved out of the home office and the site trailer and onto the site itself. As the volume of ESI expands, so too does the time and expense associated with storing, processing, reviewing and producing these records. This article will cover strategies for balancing time and expense with the requirements of the rules and the needs of the case. Reprinted courtesy of Pepper Hamilton LLP attorneys Robert A. Gallagher, Jane Fox Lehman and Michael I. Frankel Mr. Gallagher may be contacted at gallagherr@pepperlaw.com Ms. Lehman may be contacted at lehmanj@pepperlaw.com Mr. Frankel may be contacted at frankelm@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractors Should be Aware of Homeowner Duties When Invited to Perform Residential Work

    September 26, 2022 —
    Division 2 of the Court of Appeals[1] recently addressed a property owner’s liability to a contractor who is injured performing work on their property. The action arose from an incident in which Virgil Mihaila, a remodeling contractor, fell from a ladder while installing a new roof on the Troths’ shed and landed on a metal grounding rod that was sticking over a foot out of the ground. Mihaila saw the grounding rod as he was working and recognized the danger, but he claimed that he could not complete the roofing job without encountering it. Although he tried to position his ladder so that he would avoid the grounding rod if he fell, he somehow fell off the ladder and landed on the grounding rod, sustaining multiple rib fractures and a punctured lung. Mihaila filed a complaint against the Troths, alleging that they were negligent in failing to protect him from the danger of the grounding rod sticking out of the ground. The Troths denied that they were negligent and asserted the affirmative defense of contributory negligence. The Troths filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, stating that summary judgment was appropriate regarding the Troths’ duty because Mihaila “became aware of the risk, undertook to encounter the risk, and made his own efforts to mitigate the risk.” The trial court denied Mihaila’s motion for reconsideration and Mihaila appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

    Action Needed: HB24-1230 Spells Trouble for Colorado Construction Industry and its Insurers

    March 25, 2024 —
    In an apparent gift to plaintiffs’ construction defect lawyers, Representatives Parenti and Bacon introduced House Bill 24-1230 on February 12, 2024. The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee and is scheduled for hearing on March 6th, during the afternoon session beginning at 1:30 pm. To date, the bill does not have any senate sponsors, perhaps because the senators are more interested in serving their constituents’ needs for attainable housing than in lining the pockets of their plaintiffs’ construction defect attorney friends. According to the bill’s summary, HB 24-1230 contains the following provisions: Current law declares void any express waivers of or limitations on the legal rights or remedies provided by the “Construction Defect Action Reform Act” or the “Colorado Consumer Protection Act.” Sections 1 and 4 make it a violation of the “Colorado Consumer Protection Act” to obtain or attempt to obtain a waiver or limitation that violates the aforementioned current law. 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

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

    April 25, 2012 —

    Writing in Oregon’s Daily Journal of Commerce, David Anderson looks at the aftermath of the case Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc. In that case, Anderson notes that “the homeowners hired a contractor to build their house, and subsequently discovered extensive water damage” “after expiration of the time to sue for breach of contract.” The homeowners claimed negligence. Oregon’s Supreme Court concluded that “homeowners only had to prove that the contractor negligently caused reasonably foreseeable harm to the homeowner’s property.”

    Anderson views this decision as leading to two risks for contractors. “First, contractors can be held liable in tort for breaching building code standards; second, they can be held liable for violating the often-difficult-to-define ‘reasonable care’ standard.” But here, “contract can be king.” The Oregon Supreme Court noted that the contractor “could have avoided exposure to the general ‘reasonable care’ standard by more carefully defining its obligations in the original construction contract.”

    He notes that contractors who fail to define their obligations or use generic definitions “may be exposing themselves to a more vague scope of liability.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Can a Non-Union Company Be Compelled to Arbitrate?

    August 02, 2017 —
    Some of the most viewed topics on this blog are those concerning double breasted company. That is a two separate firms, commonly owned, one that is a signatory to a union and the other that is merit shop. An issue frequently encountered with double breasted construction companies is an union arbitrator’s jurisdiction over the non-signatory firm. The issue usually goes something like this. A signatory employer’s collective bargaining agreement contains language prohibiting double breasting (which could be invalid). The collective bargaining agreement also contains an arbitration provision requiring all disputes concerning a breach of the agreement (a grievance) be decided by an arbitrator in private arbitration. The union files a demand for arbitration claiming that the union signatory has breached the collective bargaining agreement’s anti-dual shop provision. The union names the non-union firm as a party to the arbitration based on its status as an alleged “single employer.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com