BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering 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


    Insurers Dispute Sharing of Defense in Construction Defect Case

    Arbitration is Waivable (Even If You Don’t Mean To)

    After Elections, Infrastructure Talk Stirs Again

    Los Angeles Team Secures Summary Judgment for Hotel Owner & Manager in Tenant’s Lawsuit

    Baltimore Project Pushes To Meet Federal Deadline

    Bribe Charges Take Toll on NY Contractor

    Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?

    Recession Graduates’ Six-Year Gap in Homeownership

    Before and After the Storm: Know Your Insurance Rights, Coverages and Obligations

    Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

    Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    Home Prices Up in Metro Regions

    Can a Receiver Prime and Strip Liens Against Real Property?

    Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

    The Enforceability of “Pay-If-Paid” Provisions Affirmed in New Jersey

    Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Yields Dueling Suits on Tower

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    Construction Industry on the Comeback, But It Won’t Be the Same

    Legal Matters Escalate in Aspen Condo Case

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

    Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)

    American Arbitration Association Revises Construction Industry Rules and Mediation Procedures

    Independent Contractor v. Employee. The “ABC Test” Does Not Include a Threshold Hiring Entity Test

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office on Another Successful MSJ!

    Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process

    Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Fall to Lowest Since 2012

    The 2023 Term of the Supreme Court: Administrative and Regulatory Law Rulings

    New York Court Enforces Construction Management Exclusion

    Water Intrusion Judged Not Related to Construction

    Are Mechanic’s Liens the Be All End All of Construction Collections?

    Speculative Luxury Homebuilding on the Rise

    Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell Recognized in 2024 Best Law Firm® Rankings

    OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit

    Should I Pull the Pin? Contractor and Subcontractor Termination for Cause

    New York Court Rules on Architect's Duty Under Contract and Tort Principles

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

    Terminator’s Trench Rehab Drives L.A. Land Prices Crazy

    Reduce Suicide Risk Among Employees in Remote Work Areas

    Related’s $1 Billion Los Angeles Project Opens After 15-Year Wait

    The Devil is in the Details: The Texas Construction Trust Fund Pitfalls Residential Remodelers (and General Contractors) Should Avoid

    Hurricane Ian: Discussing Wind-Water Disputes

    Construction Contract Basics: Attorney Fee Provisions

    Occurrence Found, Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Bar Coverage for Construction Defects

    S&P Near $1 Billion Mortgage Ratings Settlement With U.S.

    Tarriffs, a Pandemic and War: Construction Contracts Must Withstand the Unforeseeable

    No Damages for Delay May Not Be Enforceable in Virginia

    Home-Rentals Wall Street Made Say Grow or Go: Real Estate

    Not Pandemic-Proof: The Ongoing Impact of COVID-19 on the Commercial Construction Industry

    Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones
    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

    Jersey City, New Jersey, to Get 95-Story Condo Tower

    January 21, 2015 —
    A Chinese developer is planning a 95-story condominium tower for the Jersey City, New Jersey, waterfront that would be the tallest building in the state. China Overseas America Inc. plans to construct the 950-foot (290-meter) building at 99 Hudson St., according to a statement on Tuesday from Mayor Steven Fulop. The skyscraper, with 760 for-sale dwellings, would surpass the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. tower two blocks to the south, which is 781 feet tall, according to the statement. Mr. Levitt may be contacted at dlevitt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Dopp may be contacted at tdopp@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Levitt and Terrence Dopp, Bloomberg

    Supreme Court Addresses Newly Amended Statute of Repose for Construction Claims

    June 26, 2023 —
    We have been following the protracted legal battle concerning Southern States Chemical, Inc. v. Tampa Tank & Welding, Inc. This case had been litigated at the Supreme Court and resulted in legislation. In the latest round, the Supreme Court answered whether Georgia’s statute of repose for construction claims applies to claims arising or brought before the statute was amendment in 2020. What is a Georgia’s statute of repose? Under the statute, “[n]o action to recover damages: (1) For any deficiency in the survey or plat, planning, design, specifications, supervision or observation of construction, or construction of an improvement to real property; (2) For injury to property, real or personal, arising out of any such deficiency; or (3) For injury to the person or for wrongful death arising out of any such deficiency shall be brought against any person performing or furnishing the survey or plat, design, planning, supervision or observation of construction, or construction of such an improvement more than eight years after substantial completion of such an improvement.” The case began ten years ago when Southern States suited Tampa Tank and Corrosion Control for alleged defects in renovating a 24-foot tall, 130-foot wide storage tank. The tank renovation was completed in 2002, and in 2011, the tank was found to leak sulfuric acid. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Enerpac Plays Critical Role in Industry-changing Discovery for Long Span Bridges at The University of Nebraska-Lincoln

    April 19, 2022 —
    MENOMONEE FALLS, Wis. (April 18, 2022) – Three years ago when Marc Maguire, assistant professor of construction programs at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, started investigating a new stranded wire product for bridge girder reinforcing he thought the best strands for bridge construction were the industry standard 7-wire strands. After running a multitude of analyses, Maguire and student researchers found that 19-wire 1-1/8 in. diameter strands outperform the typical 7-wire 1-1/6 in. diameter strands and allow bridges to reach unprecedented lengths. Further tests conducted by the Durham School of Architectural Engineering and Construction with the help of Enerpac hydraulic tools examined the bond strength, force transfer, and development length of the 19-wire strands. "Traditionally, 19-wire strands are not often used in the U.S. because they are not widely available and they are much larger than standard strands," said Maguire. "We wanted to show that there was an alternative option to the common 7-wire strand--one that can perform at the same level, if not better." About Enerpac Enerpac is a global market leader in high pressure hydraulic tools, controlled force products, portable machining, on-site services and solutions for precise positioning of heavy loads. As a leading innovator with a 110-year legacy, Enerpac has helped move and maintain some of the largest structures on earth. When safety and precision matters, elite professionals in industries such as aerospace, infrastructure, manufacturing, mining, oil & gas and power generation rely on Enerpac for quality tools, services and solutions. For more information, visit www.enerpac.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

    June 06, 2018 —
    There are times where being too darn cute with your pleading allegations is unnecessary and does not work. But, the point is really that the cuteness is unnecessary. In a Miller Act payment bond dispute in Boneso Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Sauer, Inc., 2018 WL 2387833 (N.D.Cal. 2018), a claimant asserted claims against a Miller Act payment bond surety for breach of the payment bond, breach of a subcontract, open account, and account stated. The question is why would the claimant sue the payment bond surety for breach of subcontract (when the subcontract was not with the surety), and open account and account stated. I have no clue, other than such claims appeared quite unnecessary when the claimant asserted an action on the Miller Act payment bond (which is what the surety is liable under — actions under the statutory payment bond). Such claims were dismissed. And, they should have been. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Maybe Supervising Qualifies as Labor After All

    May 22, 2023 —
    Remember back in 2021 when I “mused” about Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland et al.? Remember how the Eastern District of Virginia held that mere supervision does not qualify as “labor” under the federal Miller Act? Well, the 4th Circuit recently weighed in on the appeal of that case and had some interesting things to say about the definition of labor. As a quick reminder, Plaintiff worked as a project manager on a project to repair and upgrade certain stairs at the Pentagon. Plaintiff subcontracted with prime contractor Forney Enterprises Inc. on this project. On Dec. 20, 2018, the prime contract was terminated. Plaintiff filed the Miller Act suit on Feb. 5, 2020. Dickson alleged that Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, or F&D, must pay him, pursuant to the Miller Act, the amount he is owed for the labor he performed on the project. Now before the district court were cross-motions for summary judgment. In evaluating Plaintiff’s claims, the district court examined the defendant’s claims that (1) Dickson’s work did not qualify as “Labor” under the Miller Act, and (2) that the suit was not timely filed. The Eastern District of Virginia court agreed with both arguments. 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

    Court Orders City to Pay for Sewer Backups

    March 31, 2014 —
    According to The Courier-Journal, in August of 2009 “raw sewage” backed “up into several houses during a torrential downpour” in Jeffersonville, Indiana. Now, a “Clark County judge has ordered the city of Jeffersonville to pay nearly $100,000 plus 8 percent annual interest for the city's negligence that led to” the incident. The problems allegedly began after a new lift station and force main, which “previously flowed southward to the Ohio River,” was “re-routed it to Springdale.” The city was eventually “cited by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management for failing to obtain a required local permit for the Springdale upgrade.” The Courier-Journal reported that Jeffersonville “agreed to take several steps to remedy the problem for residents and satisfy the state, which ultimately considered the issue resolved in October 2012.” Since the upgrade was completed, there have not been any further sewer backups, according to the city’s utility director, Len Ashack, as quoted by The Courier-Journal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    May 26, 2011 —

    On May 17, 2011, South Carolina passed legislation to combat the restrictive interpretation of what constitutes an "occurrence" under CGL policies. S.C. Code Ann. sec. 38-61-70.

    The legislation reversed a decision by the state's Supreme Court issued earlier this year. See Crossman Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 W.L. 93716 (S.C. Jan. 7, 2011). Crossman had overruled an earlier decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court that holding that defective construction was an “occurrence.” Crossman, however, reversed course, holding that damages resulting from faulty workmanship were the “natural and probable cause” of the faulty work and, as such, did not qualify as an “occurrence.”

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Top 10 Cases of 2019

    February 10, 2020 —
    In the 2019 edition of SDV’s Top Ten Insurance Cases, we probe wiretapping claims under an armed security services policy, delicately sniff out E&O coverage for a company using cow manure to create electricity, scour the earth for coverage for crumbling foundation claims, and inspect D&O policies for government investigation coverage. In addition, we preview some important and exciting decisions due in 2020. Without further ado, SDV raises the curtain on the most informative and influential insurance coverage decisions of 2019.1 1. ACE American Ins. Co. v. American Medical Plumbing, Inc., 206 A.3d 437 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019) April 4, 2019 Is waiver of subrogation language in a standard AIA201 contract sufficient to bar an insurer’s subrogation rights? The New Jersey Supreme Court held that it was. Equinox Development obtained a comprehensive blanket all-risk policy with limits of $32 million per occurrence from ACE American Ins. Co. (“ACE”). The policy covered Equinox’s new project in Summit, New Jersey. Equinox hired Grace Construction as GC, who in turn subcontracted the plumbing scope of work to American Medical Plumbing, Inc. (“American”). After completion of the work under the subcontract, a water main failed and flooded the entire project. ACE paid the limits of the policy and subrogated against American to recover its losses. American argued that there was a waiver of subrogation in the AIA201 contract that barred the suit. ACE challenged the validity of the AIA provision, arguing that it applied only to claims before completion of construction and that it only applied to damage to the work itself and not to adjacent property. The court rejected both arguments, finding that the AIA provision effectively barred ACE’s subrogation claim. This decision provides guidance on a frequently used contract form for contractors across the country. Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. attorneys Jeffrey J. Vita, Grace V. Hebbel and Andrew G. Heckler Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at gvh@sdvlaw.com Mr. Heckler may be contacted at agh@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of