BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating 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


    Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: RACHEL CLANCY

    New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder

    Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Redeux)

    The Ghosts of Projects Past

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    The Rise Of The Improper P2P Tactic

    Traub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Obtain Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Policy Conditions

    Oregon to Add 258,000 Jobs by 2022, State Data Shows

    Mechanic’s Liens- Big Exception

    Don’t Kick the Claim Until the End of the Project: Timely Give Notice and Preserve Your Claims on Construction Projects

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    Balfour Taps Qinetiq’s Quinn as new CEO to Revamp Builder

    Florida’s Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting Appellate Court Decisions on Concurrent Causation

    Fourth Circuit Rejects Application of Wrap-Up Exclusion to Additional Insured

    Strategic Communication Considerations for Contractors Regarding COVID-19

    Rescission of Policy for Misrepresentation in Application Reversed

    In Supreme Court Showdown, California Appeals Courts Choose Sides Regarding Whether Right to Repair Act is Exclusive Remedy for Homeowners

    Waiving The Right to Arbitrate Under Federal Law

    Eight Ways to Protect a Construction Company Before a Claim Is Filed

    Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

    Fluor Agrees to $14.5M Fixed-Price Project Cost Pact with SEC

    Construction Spending Highest Since April 2009

    Can a Receiver Prime and Strip Liens Against Real Property?

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

    Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier

    Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

    Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

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

    Tetra Tech-U.S. Cleanup Dispute in San Francisco Grows

    NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak

    Breaking News: Connecticut Supreme Court Decides Significant Coverage Issues in R.T. Vanderbilt

    Jersey Shore Town Trying Not to Lose the Man vs. Nature Fight on its Eroded Beaches

    Increases in U.S. Office Rents Led by San Jose and Dallas

    Scarce Cemetery Space Creates Prices to Die For: Cities

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Gets Construction Defect Bill to Committee

    What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.

    Washington Supreme Court Interprets Ensuing Loss Exception in All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

    11th Circuit Affirms Bad Faith Judgement Against Primary Insurer

    Challenging a Termination for Default

    Would You Trade a Parking Spot for an Extra Bedroom?

    Surviving a Tornado – How to Navigate Insurance Claims in the Wake of the Recent Connecticut Storm

    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

    Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    Without Reservations: Fourth Circuit Affirms That Vague Reservation of Rights Waived Insurers’ Coverage Arguments

    Gilbert’s Plan for Downtown Detroit Has No Room for Jail

    Oracle Sues Procore, Claims Theft of Trade Secrets for ERP Integration
    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

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Falls to Lowest Since Early 1995

    October 29, 2014 —
    The homeownership rate in the U.S. fell to the lowest in more than 19 years as the market shifted toward renting and tight credit blocked some potential buyers. The share of Americans who own their homes was 64.4 percent in the third quarter, down from 64.7 percent in the previous three months, the Census Bureau said in a report today. The rate was at the lowest level since the first quarter of 1995. Entry-level buyers have been held back by stringent mortgage standards and slow wage growth. The share of first-time buyers was 29 percent in September for the third straight month, compared with about 40 percent historically, according to the National Association of Realtors said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

    Scary Movie: Theatre Developer Axed By Court of Appeal In Prevailing Wage Determination Challenge

    July 19, 2017 —
    The First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal recently held that the construction of a movie theater, which was performed in furtherance of a city’s redevelopment agenda, constitutes a “public work” within the meaning of California’s prevailing wage law. Cinema West, LLC v. Christine Baker, No. A144265, (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2017). Like many California cities, the City of Hesperia (the “City”) endeavored to revitalize its downtown. In furtherance of this goal, the City acquired vacant property in its downtown with the hope of turning it into a new city hall, a public library, and “complimentary retail, restaurant, and entertainment establishments.” After completing construction of the civic buildings, the City entered into discussions with Cinema West, LLC (“Cinema West”) for the construction of a “state-of-the-art cinema experience.” Under the agreement with the City, Cinema West agreed to purchase the property from the City at fair market value, obtain financing for the construction costs, and build and maintain the movie theater. The City, on the other hand, agreed to provide Cinema West with an interest-bearing loan forgivable over ten years, and to construct an adjacent parking lot “for use by Cinema West... as a parking lot for the movie theater.” The City, moreover, agreed to issue Cinema West a one-time payment as consideration for the operating covenant. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Suit Can Continue Against Plumber

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Kansas Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling that a homeowner’s suit against a plumber was barred under the economic loss doctrine. However, subsequently the Kansas Supreme Court “refused to extend the economic loss doctrine to homeowner claims against construction contractors.” In light of this, the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court. The case, Coker v. Siler, was brought by Gregory Coker, who had bought a home from J.M.C. Construction. JMC purchased an unfinished house from Michael D. Siler in August 2006. As part of the completion process, John M. Chaney, the president of JMC, installed the water line into the residence. Mr. Coker bought the home in September 2007. Starting in April 2008, Mr. Coker noticed that his water bills had increased. Mr. Coker could find “no evidence of a leak above the ground,” so he contacted JMC Construction. Mr. Chaney had R.D. Johnson Excavation dig up the water line, after which a gap was discovered that had been allowing water to flow under the foundation. In addition to the higher water bills, an engineer determined that the water “resulted in cracks in the wall and uneven doors.” Mr. Coker sued, Siler, J.M.C. and Chaney for negligence, breach of implied warranty, strict liability, and breach of express warranty. J.M.C. and Chaney requested a summary judgment. The court dismissed Mr. Coker’s claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty on the basis of the economic loss doctrine, rejecting a petition from Mr. Coker to reconsider. The court, however, allowed Mr. Cocker to proceed with his claim of express warranty. In December, 2011, Mr. Coker accepted an offer from J.M.C. of $40,000. Mr. Coker then appealed the summary judgment, making the claim that while the court’s decision was based on Prendiville v. Contemporary Homes, Inc., this has now been overruled by David v. Hett. In this case, “the court ultimately found the rationale supporting the economic loss doctrine failed to justify a departure from a long time of cases in Kansas that establish a homeowner’s right to assert claims against residential contractors.” The appeals court concluded that “although the district court properly relied on the law as it existed at the time of its ruling, the intervening change in the law necessarily renders the conclusion reached by the district court erroneous as a matter of law.” In sending this case back to the district court, the appeals court noted that the lower court will need to determine if the “defendant accused of negligence did not have a duty to act in a certain manner towards the plaintiff,” in which case “summary judgment is proper. Mr. Coker claims that Mr. Chaney did indeed have this duty. Further, Mr. Coker claimed that Mr. Chaney had a duty arising out of implied warranty. The appeals court questioned whether the district court properly applied the economic loss doctrine to this claim, because despite being president of the construction company, Mr. Chaney “in his individual capacity as a plumber performing work for Coker, was not a party to the J.M.C. contract.” The court found that “Coker’s claim that Chaney breached an implied duty within such a contract fails as a matter of law.” However, the court did uphold Cocker’s claim of a contractor liability for injury to a third party, noting that “Chaney owed Coker a legal duty independent of Coker’s contact with J.M.C.” The appeals court left it to the district court to determine if the defect that caused the damage was present when the house left J.M.C.’s possession. The case was reversed and remanded “with directions to reinstate Coker’s claim of negligence against Chaney in his individual capacity as a plumber.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida County Suspends Impact Fees to Spur Development

    November 18, 2011 —

    Hernando County, just north of Tampa on Florida’s west coast, has suspended impact fees for a year, hoping to spur development. Hernando Today reports that the move drew applause from the audience at the county commissioners meeting. Many of those in attendance were builders or members of the Greater Hernando Chamber of Commerce.

    Not all were convinced. Frankie Burnett, the mayor of Brooksville, told the commissioners that his city council were not convinced that this would spur development. “Development should pay its fair share, even in slow economic times.” Burnett’s letter to the board warned that “if lowering impact fees succeeded in stimulating more residential overbuilding, it would only further depress the current real estate market.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Avoiding Project Planning Disasters: How to Spot Problem Projects

    December 13, 2021 —
    The burden of project planning falls first and foremost upon a project owner. Owners have varying levels of sophistication, and the smart ones fill weak spots on their staff by engaging project managers, construction managers and owner’s representatives. Typically, the owner then delegates the largest part of the project’s plan to the contractor in terms of creation and execution of a critical path method schedule during the construction phase. Before accepting that burden, a wise contractor will evaluate the project to determine if it is on a path to success or disaster. It is guaranteed that an owner’s problems will become the contractor’s problems in one way or another. There are legendary projects that were also legendary planning failures. The iconic Sydney Opera House is one. The design competition began in 1955. After selecting the architect, the owner implemented a team that involved that architect, a structural engineer and an executive committee of inexperienced politicians. The original plan included a budget of $7 million (Australian) and a completion schedule spread over four years. That executive committee forced the project to start before designs were complete, doubled the number of theaters and then put a strangle-hold on the payment process, eventually causing the architect to quit and return to Europe with the construction drawings. The Opera House opened for its first performance in 1973—14 years late and $98 million over budget. Reprinted courtesy of James T. Dixon, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

    August 03, 2020 —
    In Crescent Beach Club, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2020 WL 3414697 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020), the district court considered application of a CGL policy issued to a property owner containing the following exclusion: "This policy does not apply to any ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’, ‘personal and advertising injury’, or any other loss, cost, defense fee, expense, injury, damage, claim, dispute or ‘suit’ either arising out of, or related to, any construction, renovation, rehabilitation, demolition, erection, excavation or remedition [sic] of any building and includes planning, site preparation, surveying or other other [sic] construction or development of real property. This exclusion, however, shall not apply to routine maintenance activities." Plaintiff in the underlying action alleged injury while engaged in construction work at the insured’s premises. The information the insurer received was conflicting as to whether plaintiff was demolishing a pergola (excluded) or merely removing vines (not excluded). The insurer reserved its rights accordingly. At his deposition in the underlying action, the plaintiff testified he was in a manlift performing demolition at the time he was injured. The insured’s property manager also testified that the pergola was being demolished. Approximately one month after the depositions, the insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

    TxDOT: Flatiron/Dragados Faces Default Over Bridge Design Issues

    September 12, 2022 —
    Texas officials are threatening to replace the contractor building a $930-million bridge crossing the Corpus Christi Ship Channel, alleging the firm has failed to address previously identified safety concerns with the design. In response, the contractor says the state has delayed sharing key engineering information and insists the design is safe. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Montana Significantly Revises Its Product Liability Laws

    May 22, 2023 —
    On May 4, 2023, Montana changed its product liability laws when the Governor signed SB 216, which was effective upon passage and applies to claims that accrue on or after May 4, 2023. Among the changes is the adoption of a sealed container defense and the application of comparative negligence principles in strict liability actions. Montana also adopted a defense based on certain actions not being brought within 10 years. In addition, Montana adopted a rebuttable presumption with respect to a product’s defective condition. A jury must be informed about this rebuttable presumption with respect to certain warnings claims, premarket licensing procedures or claims involving drugs and/or medical devices. The changes to the Montana Code are further described below.
    • In situations where there are multiple defendants, a defendant in a strict liability or breach of warranty action may now assert, as a defense, that the damages of the claimant were caused in full or in part by a person with whom the claimant has settled or released from liability. See MCA § 27-1-703(6)(a) (as revised). Comparative negligence or fault defenses are also available in actions against sellers, even where there are not multiple defendants. See MCA § 27-1-719(4)(e) (discussing a seller’s defenses in situations other than multiple defendant situations) (as revised).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com