BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildings
    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


    The Cheapest Place to Buy a House in the Hamptons

    ASCE's Architectural Engineering Institute Announces Winners of 2021 AEI Professional Project Award

    Enforceability of Contract Provisions Extending Liquidated Damages Beyond Substantial Completion

    How Finns Cut Construction Lead Times in Half

    Cross-Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings for COVID-19 Claim Denied

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/10/23) – Wobbling Real Estate, Booming (and Busting) Construction, and Eye-Watering Insurance Premiums

    Five LEED and Green Construction Trends to Watch in 2020

    Justice Didn’t Ensure Mortgage Fraud Was Priority, IG Says

    Personal Injury Claims – The Basics

    Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

    “Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)

    North Carolina Learns More Lessons From Latest Storm

    Incorrect Information Provided on Insurance Application Defeats Claim for Coverage

    Drastic Rebuild Resurrects Graves' Landmark Portland Building

    Congratulations 2016 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Win Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Favor of Insurer

    OSHA Advisory Committee, Assemble!

    White and Williams Selected in the 2024 Best Law Firms ranked by Best Lawyers®

    Congratulations to Walnut Creek Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Associate Jeffrey Schilling for Winning a Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Their Client, a Regional Grocery Store!

    1st District Joins 2nd District Court of Appeals and Holds that One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims

    The Secret to an OSHA Inspection

    WSHB Expands into the Southeast

    Connecticut Court Holds Unresolved Coverage Issues Makes Appraisal Premature

    North Dakota Court Determines Inadvertent Faulty Workmanship is an "Occurrence"

    Co-Founding Partner Jason Feld Named Finalist for CLM’s Outside Defense Counsel Professional of the Year

    Factories Boost U.S. Output as Builders Gain Confidence: Economy

    Atlanta Office Wins Defense Verdict For Property Manager On Claims By Vendor, Cross-Claims By Property Owner

    Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

    Building on New Risks: Construction in the Age of Greening

    Brown and Caldwell Appoints Stigers as Design Chief Engineer

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Gets Construction Defect Bill to Committee

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    District Court's Ruling Affirmed in TCD v American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

    Can We Compel Insurers To Cover Construction Defect in General Liability Policies?

    Why Federal and State Agencies are Considering Converting from a “Gallons Consumed” to a “Road Usage” Tax – And What are the Risks to the Consumer?

    The Construction Lawyer as Problem Solver

    Sinking Buildings on the Rise?

    Stop Losing Proposal Competitions

    Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company

    California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

    Mexico Settles With Contractors for Canceled Airport Terminal

    Infrastructure Money Comes With Labor Law Strings Attached

    A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    John Aho: Engineer Pushed for Seismic Safety in Alaska Ahead of 2018 Earthquake

    COVID-izing Your Construction Contract

    Developer Transition – Washington DC Condominiums

    Law Firm Fails to Survive Insurer's and Agent's Motions to Dismiss

    20 Years of BHA at West Coast Casualty's CD Seminar: Chronicling BHA's Innovative Exhibits
    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. Leveraging 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

    2021 Real Estate Trends: New Year, New Reality—A Day of Reckoning for Borrowers and Tenants

    February 08, 2021 —
    On the one-year anniversary of China’s Wuhan lockdown, COVID-19 has become a part of everyday life and as we enter the new year, real estate borrowers and lenders alike will need to understand this new normal and face the reality that is fast approaching. In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the United States, many state and local governments instituted eviction moratoria and other protections for real estate tenants and borrowers. These protections created a window of opportunity for tenants and borrowers to negotiate reasonable solutions with their respective landlords and lenders regarding rent and debt payments amid the COVID-19 pandemic. This temporary period of restricted remedies also allowed courts to analyze legal arguments on how the COVID-19 pandemic impacts the real estate industry. However, with court rulings forthcoming and many of these eviction protections set to expire in 2021, landlords and tenants as well as borrowers and lenders will be forced to have discussions regarding the realities of their industry and their ability to pay their respective rents and mortgages amid the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Throughout 2020, lenders and landlords were forced to accommodate workout negotiations as their ability to evict or foreclose upon defaulting tenants or borrowers was prohibited. Many commercial real estate parties were able to come to agreements on what borrowers and tenants were able to pay, given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their respective industries. As the legal protections are rolled back and the leverage shifts back into the hands of the lenders and landlords, we will likely see a trend of aggressive landlords and lenders and an increased number of evictions and foreclosures, especially in industries that are most vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic: retail and hospitality. Reprinted courtesy of Robert J. Grados, Pillsbury and Adam Weaver, Pillsbury Mr. Grados may be contacted at robert.grados@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Were Quake Standards Illegally Altered for PG&E Nuclear Power Plant?

    October 29, 2014 —
    An environmental group has brought a lawsuit alleging that “[f]ederal regulators secretly and illegally revised the license for California’s last nuclear power facility — PG&E’s Diablo Canyon — to mask the aging plant’s vulnerability to earthquakes,” according to SF Gate. Friends of the Earth’s “suit claims that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. last year changed a key element of the plant’s license related to seismic safety without allowing public input as required by law — or even notifying the public at all.” However, spokesman Blair Jones claimed that “Friends of the Earth continues to mischaracterize the facts regarding seismic safety at Diablo Canyon. The facts are Diablo Canyon was built with earthquake safety at the forefront, is a seismically safe facility, and is in compliance with NRC licensing requirements.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wisconsin Court of Appeals Re-affirms American Girl To Find Coverage for Damage Caused by Subcontractors

    September 20, 2021 —
    The trial court's finding of no occurrence and no property damage due to faulty workmanship was reversed by the appellate court. No. 5 Walworth v. Engerman Contracting, Inc., 2021 Wis. App. LEXIS 401 (Wis. Ct. App, July 30, 2021). Engerman was the general contractor on a construction project at a residence. Engerman was hired to build a poll complex. Engerman subcontracted the project to Downes Swimming Pool Co., Inc. Downes purchased shotcrete (sprayed concrete) from Otto Jacobs Company LLC for the swimming poll walls and base. After completion, the pool immediately began leaking. An investigation determined that the shotcrete material was not installed correctly, contributing to cracking in the pool walls and the steel reinforcing bars were not sufficient to prevent cracks in the pool walls. The owner demolished the pool and constructed a new one. Thereafter, the owner sued Engerman, its insurers (General Casualty Company of Wisconsin and West Bend Mutual Insurance Company) and Downes and its insurer. Downes filed a third-party complaint against Jacobs and its insurer (Acuity Mutual Insurance Company) alleging Jacobs negligently provided inferior shotcrete to Downes. 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

    New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation

    August 06, 2019 —
    New York has signed the biggest-ever deals for offshore wind power in U.S. history, a key part of the state’s plan to get all of its power from emissions-free sources by 2040. On Thursday, Governor Andrew Cuomo awarded contracts for two projects off Long Island that will total 1,700 megawatts in capacity. Equinor ASA and a joint venture between Denmark’s Orsted A/S and Massachusetts-based Eversource Energy were chosen to build the farms, which will supply enough power to light up a million homes. Cuomo is counting on the wind projects to achieve the most aggressive clean energy goal in the U.S., and signed the state’s 100% renewable energy target into law right after announcing the wind contracts. New York’s ultimate plan is to get enough turbines erected off its shores to generate 9,000 megawatts by 2035. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Will Wade, Chris Martin, & Millicent Dent, Bloomberg

    Colorado Adopts Twombly-Iqbal “Plausibility” Standard

    July 14, 2016 —
    Last week, the Colorado Supreme Court announced a dramatic shift in its rules of pleading, adopting the federal courts’ requirement that a claim must be “plausible on its face” to survive a motion to dismiss. Although seemingly subtle, this change transfers much more power to district court judges and weakens the right to a jury in civil actions. For decades in Colorado, courts have held that a plaintiff’s complaint need merely provide a defendant with notice of the transaction that caused an alleged injury. Judges would not dismiss the complaint unless it appeared “beyond doubt” that the plaintiff could prove “no set of facts” which would entitle him or her to relief. See Davidson v. Dill, 180 Colo. 123, 131, 503 P.2d 157, 162 (1972), quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957). This was rooted in the notion that the civil jury was the ultimate arbiter of disputed facts in American jurisprudence. Every party was entitled to have his or her “day in court” and present claims to a group of jurors selected from the community, rather than a judge appointed by the governor. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

    March 14, 2022 —
    On February 4, 2022, President Biden issued Executive Order (“EO”) 14063[1]. The EO requires that a Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) be in place for any federal “large-scale construction projects” estimated at $35 million or more. To compete for or perform projects subject to the PLA requirement contractors must agree to be subject to the applicable PLA. For federal projects under $35 million or projects receiving federal financial assistance are not required by the EO to have PLA, but federal agencies will have discretion to require PLAs. The EO will not go into effect until after implementing regulations are finalized, probably after the beginning of June 2022. Requiring PLAs on federal construction projects is a substantial shift from even the Obama Administration’s policy in favor of PLAs. Biden’s PLA EO will have an impact on federal contractors and likely industry repercussions beyond federal procurement. Only time and experience will tell whether those impacts will all be positive as the Biden Administration insists or will drive up construction costs and give unions more leverage than they have in the market as the critics insist. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicole Stone, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Ms. Stone may be contacted at nstone@joneswalker.com

    Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts

    November 27, 2013 —
    Construction defect claims are governed by a section of the Massachusetts laws and allow for three years after the work was completed, unless the defect is “inherently unknowable,” according to a post by John Shaffer on the web site of his firm, Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, a New England law firm that specializes in condominium law. Those “inherently unknowable” defects fall into the six-year statute of repose. If, for example, a roof doesn’t show “significant water leakage” until after the end of the statutory period, “the association is out of luck and the responsible parties are off the hook,” writes Mr. Shaffer. “Even if the association could prove conclusively that the roof was improperly constructed and caused significant damage, the association’s claim will be barred.” One problem condominium associations can face is that defects in the earliest phases of building can sometimes become apparent while the developer still controls the board. “While a developer in control of a board has the same fiduciary obligation as owner-elected trustees to protect the association’s interests, it is probably safe to assume that few developers will be inclined to sue themselves.” Here, Mr. Shaffer notes that owners can join together and either “hasten the transition to owner control of the association” or “convince them to correct the identified deficiencies.” Mr. Shaffer notes that some questions concerning the statute of repose haven’t been answered by the Massachusetts courts. He does assure readers that “developers will no doubt argue that the statute of limitations has expired on defects because the association discovered or ‘should have discovered’ their existence more than three years before the lawsuit was started.” He advises condominium associations to calculate “their filing deadlines as conservatively as possible.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Can an Architect, Hired by an Owner, Be Sued by the General Contractor?

    September 10, 2014 —
    As is often the answer in this blog, maybe. And, it will likely depend on which state’s law is applied. Over the last few weeks, courts around the country have reached differing conclusions on whether a general contractor may sue an architect that it did not hire. Here’s the situation: The owner hires an architect to draft plans for a project. The project is then put out for bid and the owner hires a general contractor for the work. The general contractor and architect do not enter into a contract with each other. If, during construction, the general contractor finds fault with the plans, it may seek Request for Information and Change Orders, to shore up the perceived problems with the plans. Ultimately, the general contractor may sue the architect to recover damages it suffered in completing the project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com