BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    Emerging World Needs $1.5 Trillion for Green Buildings, IFC Says

    California Senator Proposes Bill to Require Contractors to Report Construction Defect Cases

    Five New Laws to Know Before They Take Effect On Jan. 1, 2022

    Five Construction Payment Issues—and Solutions

    Tests Find Pollution From N.C. Coal Ash Site Hit by Florence Within Acceptable Levels

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “How Bad Is It?”

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law

    Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures

    Ex-Corps Worker Pleads Guilty to Bribery on Afghan Contract

    Drug Company Provides Cure for Development Woes

    Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

    ACEC Statement on Negotiated Bipartisan Debt Limit Compromise

    Senior Living Facility Makes Construction Defect Claims

    Insurer Obligated to Cover Preventative Remediation of Construction Defects

    Affordable Housing, Military Contracts and Mars: 3D Printing Construction Potential Builds

    Can an App Renovate a Neighborhood?

    Critical Updates in Builders Risk Claim Recovery: Staying Ahead of the "Satisfactory State" Argument and Getting the Most Out of LEG 3

    The Practical Distinction Between Anticipatory Breach and Repudiation and How to Deal with Both on Construction Projects

    Estoppel Certificate? Estop and Check Your Lease

    White House Reverses Trump Administration NEPA Cutbacks

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Kept Climbing in January

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    Cybersecurity "Flash" Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

    Message from the Chair: Kelsey Funes (Volume I)

    New Safety Requirements added for Keystone Pipeline

    Filing Motion to Increase Lien Transfer Bond (Before Trial Court Loses Jurisdiction Over Final Judgment)

    Women Make Their Mark on Construction Leadership

    Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

    New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction

    PSA: New COVID Vaccine ETS Issued by OSHA

    Voluntary Payments Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply in Contract Cases

    Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy

    Brazil World Cup Soccer Crisis Deepens With Eighth Worker Death

    Why You May Not Want a Mandatory Mediation Clause in Your Construction Contract

    Spearin Doctrine 100 Years Old and Still Thriving in the Design-Build Delivery World

    No Coverage for Additional Insured

    What is the Implied Warranty of Habitability?

    Endorsement Excludes Replacement of Undamaged Property with Matching Materials

    Small Airport to Grow with Tower

    No Coverage for Sink Hole Loss

    California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

    HOA Coalition Statement on Construction-Defects Transparency Legislation

    Contractor’s Claim for Interest on Subcontractor’s Defective Work Claim Gains Mixed Results

    The Registered Agent Advantage

    Architectural Firm, Fired by School District, Launches Lawsuit

    Understanding Lien Waivers

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers!

    California Supreme Court Declines Request to Expand Exceptions to Privette Doctrine for Known Hazards

    Pine Island Bridge in Place as Florida Pushes Barrier Island Access in Ian's Wake
    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

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part II

    March 28, 2018 —
    Part II of this three-part series compares and analyzes important contract sections in the AIA 201 (2007 and 2017 versions) and ConsensusDocs (2014 and 2017 versions), including Schedule/Time, Consequential Damages/LDs, Claims and Disputes/ADR. Part I covered Financial Assurances, Design Risk, Project Management and Contract Administration. Part III will cover Insurance and Indemnification and Payment. SCHEDULE/TIME Relevant Sections:
    • 2007 & 2017 A201: Section 3.10.1
    • 2014 & 2017 ConsensusDocs: Section 6.2
    AIA:
    • Section 3.10.1 of the 2007 A201 requires that the Contractor promptly after being awarded the Contract, prepare and submit a construction schedule providing for Work to be completed within the time limits required in the Contract Documents.
    • This schedule shall be revised at appropriate intervals.
    • The 2017 edition breaks down the schedule to contain date of commencement, interim milestone dates, date of substantial completion, apportionment of Work by trade or building system, and the time required for completion of each portion of the Work.
    • Under section 3.10.2 of the 2007 and 2017 versions, if the Contractor fails to provide a submittal schedule, the Contractor is not entitled to any additional compensation or a time extension based on the Owner’s or the Architect’s slow processing of submittals, regardless of how long they take.
    ConsensusDocs 200:
    • The 2017 Contract replaces the term Contract Time and instead requires a “Schedule of the Work…formatted in detailed precedence-style critical path method that (a) provides a graphic representation of all activities and events, including float values that will affect the critical path of the Work and (b) identifies dates that are critical to ensure timely and orderly completion of the Work.”
    • The Constructor must submit an initial schedule to the Owner only before, “first application for payment” and thereafter on a monthly basis. (Section 6.2.1).
    • The Owner is allowed to change the sequences provided in the schedule as long as it does not “unreasonably interfere with the Work.” (Section 6.2.2).
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Sams , Kenney & Sams and Amanda Cox, Kenney & Sams Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

    March 01, 2021 —
    AMCC is pleased to announce Gene Witkin joining Ross Hart’s mediation team effective March 1 this year. Prior to joining our esteemed roster of neutrals, Mr. Witkin was active in complex litigation, insurance disputes, and conflict resolution in numerous different states and venues throughout the United States for more than thirty years. In 2000, he co-founded the law firm Menter & Witkin LLP that focused in large part on risk sharing and funding of large lawsuits, which gave him the diverse experience of representing both plaintiffs and defendants, as well as third-party defendants and insurance companies. Mr. Witkin completed mediator training at National Conflict Resolution Center in 2017, and is an AV Rated “Preeminent Attorney” by Martindale-Hubbell (highest rating) and “Super Lawyer” every year since 2015. He may be contacted at g.witkin@amccenter.com or through AMCC at (800) 645-4874. Reprinted courtesy of Arbitration Mediation Conciliation Center (AMCC) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Denial of Coverage for Bulge in Wall Upheld

    November 26, 2014 —
    The insurer properly denied coverage for a bulge in a warehouse wall that the insured claimed was caused by Hurricane Ike. Russell v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143882 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2014). Hurricane Ike displaced metal roof coverings on the insured's warehouse, causing interior water damage to several rooms. Scottsdale eventually paid $84,820.36 for the loss of the roof, less the deductible. The parties disagreed on whether a horizontal bulge on the north wall of the warehouse was also caused by the hurricane. The bulging portion of the wall was not cracked, but cracks were seen around the corners and windows. The insured admitted to an engineer retained by Scottsdale that the cracks in the exterior walls had been filled with caulking on several occasions prior to Hurricane Ike. Scottsdale denied coverage for the damage to the north wall under exclusions for soil sinking, rising, or shifting and for damage from faulty, inadequate or defective design, construction, and repair.The insured later sent a demand for $800,000 for the damage to the wall. A suit was eventually filed by the insured. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Courts Will Not Second-Guess Public Entities When it Comes to Design Immunity

    May 13, 2024 —
    It was a bizarre confluence of events. Jorgen Stufkosky was driving on SR-154 in Santa Ynez, California. Martha Aguayo was driving on the same highway ahead of Stufkosky when she struck a deer causing it to fly across the centerline into traffic from the opposite direction. The deer struck a SUV causing its driver to lose control. The driver of the SUV crossed the same centerline where he collided head on with Stufkosky, killing him. Stufkosky’s children later sued the California Department of Transportation in the case Stufkosky v. California Department of Transportation, 97 Cal.App.5th 492 (2023), alleging that their father’s death was due to Caltrans’ negligent design of SR-153, inadequate number of deer crossing signs, and its high posted speed limit. While in the trial court, Caltrans filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Caltrans was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the so called “design immunity” statute. The trial court agreed and the Stufloskys appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Soldiers Turn Brickies as U.K. Homebuilders Seek Workers

    May 20, 2015 —
    After 21 years in the British Army that included tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, Ross Wilson was offered a buyout. Britain’s shortage of construction workers allowed him to trade desert sand for muddy building sites in the north of England. Wilson, 38, is working as an apprentice bricklayer for homebuilder Persimmon Plc, which will train more than 300 former soldiers this year because of the country’s shortage of skilled workers. The government formed after next month’s national election will have to urgently address the lack of new homes, according to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Persimmon’s Combat to Construction program is the latest effort by the industry to increase output as the shortage sends asking prices to record highs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Neil Callanan, Bloomberg

    Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required

    April 15, 2014 —
    On April 4, 2014, in Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendant Pharmaceutical Corporation because the district court improperly excluded expert testimony. The three-judge panel held that the district court erred by excluding causation testimony offered by Plaintiff's expert it found to be irrelevant and unreliable. Plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000. In response to her development of osteoporosis after chemotherapy, Plaintiff treated with the drug Zometa for several months in 2002. Zometa is a bisphosphonate, a class of drug commonly used to treat multiple myeloma. Such drugs are generally used to reduce or eliminate the possibility of skeletal-related degeneration and injuries to which cancer patients are particularly susceptible. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation produces Zometa, which was approved by the FDA in 2001 and 2002. In 2005 after encountering issues with her jaw, it was discovered that Plaintiff had osteonecrosis near three of her teeth. The oral specialists treating Plaintiff did so under the assumption that she was suffering from bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw ("BRONJ"), a condition recognized by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons ("AAOMS"). Plaintiff's BRONJ healed in 2008 - three years after beginning treatment. Thereafter, Plaintiff brought suit against Novartis for strict products liability, negligent manufacture, negligent failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranty, and loss of consortium. In support of her claims, Plaintiff offered her expert's testimony on ONJ and BRONJ, and on the causal link between plaintiff's bisphosphonate treatment and later development of BRONJ. Novartis filed a Daubert motion to exclude the specific causation testimony of Plaintiff's experts and a motion seeking summary judgment. The district court granted both motions on the basis that Plaintiff's expert testimony was irrelevant and unreliable. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Surge in Home Completions Tamps Down Inflation as Fed Meets

    June 17, 2015 —
    American builders are tamping down what little inflation there is. Construction companies completed 392,000 buildings with five or more units at an annualized rate in May, the most since 1988, Commerce Department figures showed Tuesday in Washington. “The pickup in demand is pushing up rents and also creating more incentive for builders to put up more units,” said Michael Hanson, a senior economist at Bank of America Corp. in New York. The jump in completions “helps offset some of the upward pressure we’ve seen” on rents, said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Carlos Torres, Bloomberg

    Board of Directors Guidance When Addressing Emergency Circumstances Occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic

    May 11, 2020 —
    The COVID-19 pandemic has sent massive shockwaves throughout the global economy. This crises requires business leaders to confront a host of deleterious effects on an emergency basis – the likes of which many companies have never experienced. Boards of directors must remain cognizant of their oversight responsibilities in these trying times. This post offers guidance to directors of Delaware companies for addressing emergency circumstances occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. Board Oversight – Lessons from Marchand V. Barnhill Directors should consider the lessons learned from the recent Delaware Supreme Court case Marchand v. Barnhill, a ruling we addressed in a previous blog post, when considering board oversight during the COVID-19 pandemic. Marchand centered on a lawsuit brought by shareholders in an ice cream manufacturing company against the company’s board of directors. The shareholders claimed that the directors violated their duty of loyalty[1] to the company when they failed to provide sufficient oversight and compliance-monitoring during a listeria outbreak that led the company to recall all products, temporarily cease product production at all plants and lay off more than one-third of the company’s workforce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Marc Casarino, Lori Smith and Gwenn Barney Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Barney may be contacted at Barneyg@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of