BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing 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


    How to Drop a New Building on Top of an Old One

    BHA at the 10th Annual Construction Law Institute, Orlando

    Architects Should Not Make Initial Decisions on Construction Disputes

    Licensing Reciprocity Comes to Virginia

    California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment

    Human Eye Resolution Virtual Reality for AEC

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

    HUD Homeownership Push to Heed Lessons From Crisis, Castro Says

    Construction Spending Highest Since April 2009

    SCOTUS Opens Up Federal Courts to Land Owners

    Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    When a Request for Equitable Adjustment Should Be Treated as a Claim Under the Contract Disputes Act

    Chicago Cubs Agree to Make Wrigley Field ADA Improvements to Settle Feds' Lawsuit

    New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida

    COVID-19 Business Closure and Continuity Compliance Resource

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    Penn Station’s Revival Gets a $1.6 Billion Down Payment

    Collaborating or Competing with Construction Tech Startups

    Governor Murphy Approves Legislation Implementing Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024

    Residential Construction Surges in Durham

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/16/24) – Algorithms Affect the Rental Market, Robots Aim to Lower Construction Costs, and Gen Z Struggle to Find Their Own Space

    Misread of Other Insurance Clause Becomes Costly for Insurer

    The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

    Private Mediations Do Not Toll The Five-Year Prosecution Statute

    Ninth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Construction Defects Under California Law

    Mississippi Floods Prompt New Look at Controversial Dam Project

    A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Substitution Hearings Under California’s Listing Law

    Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

    North Dakota Universities Crumble as Oil Cash Pours In

    Third Circuit Affirms Use of Eminent Domain by Natural Gas Pipeline

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

    Portions of Policyholder's Expert's Opinions Excluded

    Federal Court Enforces “Limits” and “Most We Will Pay” Clauses in Additional Insured Endorsement

    Washington, DC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Expires

    Additional Insurance Coverage Determined for General Contractor

    Breaking with Tradition, The Current NLRB is on a Rulemaking Tear: Election Procedures, Recognition Bar, and 9(a) Collective Bargaining Relationships

    New Certification Requirements for Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns and Service-Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business Concerns Seeking Public Procurement Contracts

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” in four practice areas and Tier 2 in one practice area by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2021

    EPA Seeks Comment on Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule

    The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

    Proposed California Legislation Would Eliminate Certain Obstacles to Coverage for Covid-19 Business Income Losses

    A Quick Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Timing Refresher

    Traub Lieberman Elects New Partners for 2020

    Construction Defect Claim Not Timely Filed
    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

    16 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2021 Top Lawyers!

    September 20, 2021 —
    Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s featured attorneys who made the Sacramento Magazine’s Top Lawyer List for 2021! The voting for Professional Research Services’ survey to determine the top attorneys in 2021 for Sacramento Magazine was open to all licensed attorneys in Sacramento, Calif. Attorneys were asked whom they would recommend among 56 legal specialties, other than themselves, in the Sacramento area. Each attorney was allowed to recommend up to three colleagues in each given legal specialty. Once the online nominations were complete, each nominee was carefully evaluated on the basis of the survey results, the legitimacy of their license, and their current standing with the State Bar of California. Attorneys who received the highest number of votes in each specialty are reflected in the following list. – Sacramento Magazine Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP

    EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater

    May 27, 2019 —
    On Tuesday, April 23, 2019, in a development of interest to practically anyone who operates a plant or business, EPA published its Interpretive Statement in the Federal Register. (See 84 FR 16810 (April 23, 2019).) After considering the thousands of comments it received in response to a February 20, 2018, Federal Register notice, EPA has concluded that “the Clean Water Act (CWA) is best read as excluding all releases of pollutants from a point source to groundwater from a point source from NPDES program coverage, regardless of a hydrological connection between the groundwater and jurisdictional surface water.” Acknowledging that its past public statements have not been especially consistent or unambiguous on this important matter, EPA states that this interpretation “is the best, if not the only reading of the CWA, is more consistent with Congress’ intent than other interpretations of the Act, and best addresses the question of NPDES permit program applicability for pollutant releases to groundwater within the authority of the CWA.” Indeed, the absence of “a dedicated statement on the best reading of the CWA has generated confusion in the courts, and uncertainly for EPA regional offices and states implementing the NPDES program, regulated entities, and the public.” The recent and contrary interpretations of this issue by the Ninth Circuit (Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, 886 F.3d 737) and the Fourth Circuit (Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP, 887 F.3d 637) will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which will now have the benefit of the agency’s official position. In addition, EPA discloses that it will be soliciting additional public “input” on how it can best provide the regulated community with “further clarity and regulatory certainly”; these comments will be due within 45 days (June 7, 2019). 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

    Stuck in Seattle: The Aggravating Adventures of a Gigantic Tunnel Drill

    April 01, 2015 —
    About 20 workers wearing hard hats and reflective vests clump together on the edge of a chasm near Seattle’s waterfront, peering down a hole 120 feet deep and 83 feet wide. The last men have been craned out of the pit in a yellow metal cage. Gulls squawk. A TV news helicopter hovers overhead. A dozen journalists stand nearby on the bed of a truck. We’re here to see Bertha, one of the world’s biggest tunneling machines. Or at least a piece of her. A 240-foot crane is about to haul a 540,000-pound steel shield out of the ground, 20 months after Bertha started digging a highway. Almost imperceptibly, the crane starts rising. The event, on a Thursday in mid-March, is part of a massive rescue mission to fix the $80 million machine. She broke abruptly in December 2013 after boring through just 1,000 feet, one-ninth of her job. Her seals busted, and her teeth clogged with grit and pieces of an 8-inch steel pipe left over from old groundwater tests. She stopped entirely. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Karen Weise, Bloomberg
    Ms. Weise may be contacted at kweise@bloomberg.net

    Business Risk Exclusions Dismissed in Summary Judgment Motion

    November 09, 2020 —
    While the court denied summary judgment on whether the alleged damage was due to faulty workmanship and not covered, it granted summary judgment for dismissal of several business risk exclusions the insurer asserted against the developer. United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Dorn Homes, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138431 (D. Ariz. Aug. 4, 2020). Dorn, a residential home developer, developed a 350 single family residential home division. Dorn did not perform the actual construction, but contracted with various subcontractors. After completion, Dorn began to receive complaints from homeowners about interior damage to some of the homes. Inspections showed interior cracking, wall separation and foundation movement. Dorn ultimately installed an unvented foam insulated roof system to address these issues. Therefore, it did not repair the faulty workmanship of its subcontractors because it would not have been efficient or as effective. Dorn paid for the repairs to the 87 homes at issue. 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

    A License to Sue: Appellate Court Upholds Condition of Statute that a Contracting Party Must Hold a Valid Contractor’s License to Pursue Action for Recovery of Payment for Contracting Services

    June 21, 2017 —
    California Business & Professions Code section 7031(a) requires a party to have contractor’s license in order to maintain an action for compensation for services performed for which a contractor’s license is needed. In Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc. v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., No. B269186 (2017 WL 2544856) (Cal. Ct. App. June 13, 2017), the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District considered the scope of this statute in denying, in part, Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc.’s (“Phoenix Pipeline”) appeal of a trial court ruling granting Space Exploration Technologies Corporation’s (“SpaceX”) demurrer to Phoenix Pipeline’s second amended complaint, without leave to amend. Phoenix Pipeline filed the underlying lawsuit for, among other claims, breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing arising from an agreement with SpaceX for Phoenix Pipeline to perform various plumbing, concrete removal and electrical services. Phoenix Pipeline alleged SpaceX paid for such services from 2010 to October 2013, but failed to pay Phoenix for services performed from October 2013 to August 2014, totaling just over $1,000,000. According to Phoenix Pipeline, this work was performed pursuant to a series of invoices, which constituted individual agreements between SpaceX and Phoenix Pipeline. Reprinted courtesy of Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Structural Engineer Found Liable for Defects that Rendered a Condominium Dangerously Unsafe

    June 22, 2016 —
    On May 3, 2016, the Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed a jury’s verdict in favor of a condominium HOA against a structural engineer for $1,149,332 in damages.[1] The project in question was The Pointe, an upscale condominium building in Westport, Washington. The developer was Dodson-Duus, LLC. The architect was Elkins Architects (“Elkins”). The structural engineer was Engineers Northwest, Inc. (“ENW”). ENW contracted with Elkins for the structural engineering work. Birds flying past 3 construction cranesBoth the design and construction of the building suffered from defects. In particular, the lateral force resistance system was insufficient to withstand a large seismic event. The defects included improperly nailed shear walls, weak connections between shear walls and floor joists, improperly-sized floor sheathing, a weak second-floor diaphragm, and omitted hold-downs connecting shear walls to a steel beam. The use of gypsum sheathing also created a risk of corrosion to the building’s steel structure. Evidence tied each of these defects to some aspect of ENW’s structural calculations and designs. Evidence also tied omission of the hold-downs to the contractor’s construction decisions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Cressman may be contacted at pcressman@ac-lawyers.com

    Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

    October 28, 2011 —

    The US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”

    The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”

    D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:

    “(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”

    The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.

    The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.

    Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.

    The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    ASCE Statement on National Dam Safety Awareness Day - May 31

    June 06, 2022 —
    Washington, DC. – Nationwide, more than 92,000 dams protect communities across the country, providing numerous services including irrigation, water conservation, and flood protection. Advocating for the safety, robustness, and sustainability of our nation's dams is a top priority for ASCE as we recognize May 31 as National Dam Safety Awareness Day. National Dam Safety Awareness Day is observed in remembrance of the "Johnstown Flood" on May 31, 1889. Failures of the South Fork Dam near Johnstown, PA, resulted in the death of more than 2,200 people. This tragedy serves as an illustration of the critical importance of effectively maintaining and managing our nation's dams and ensuring that adequate dam safety measures remain in place to avoid these preventable tragedies. ASCE's 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure gave the nation's dams a "D" grade. Of the nation's 92,000 dams, more than 15,000 are classified as having "high hazard potential", meaning that dam failure would result in the loss of life. While increased state investment in dam safety programs has allowed for better assessment of dams and the ability to identify rehabilitation needs as well as potential hazards, increased federal investment is still needed to ensure the safety of dams nationwide. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of