BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimony
    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


    Nevada’s Changing Liability Insurance Landscape—State Insurance Regulator Issues Emergency Regulation and Guidance Addressing Controversial “Defense-Within-Limits” Legislation

    Are Contracting Parties Treated the Same When it Comes to Notice Obligations?

    The Future of Construction Work with Mark Ehrlich

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    OSHA Issues Final Rule on Electronic Submission of Injury and Illness Data

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/06/22

    Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers

    Construction Delays for China’s Bahamas Resort Project

    BWB&O is Recognized in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®!

    New Case Law Update: Mountain Valleys, Chevron Deference and a Long-Awaited Resolution on the Sacketts’ Small Lot

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Environmental Justice: A Legislative and Regulatory Update

    Reversing Itself, Alabama Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect is An Occurrence

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"

    Google, Environmentalists and University Push Methane-Leak Detection

    Are You Taking Full Advantage of Available Reimbursements for Assisting Injured Workers?

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

    OSHA Issues COVID-19 Guidance for Construction Industry

    Apprentices on Public Works Projects: Sometimes it’s Not What You Do But Who You Do the Work For That Counts

    Owner Can’t Pursue Statutory Show Cause Complaint to Cancel Lien… Fair Outcome?

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

    Asbestos Exclusion Bars Coverage

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

    Haight’s 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    County Sovereign Immunity Invokes Change-Order Ordinance

    Rich NYC Suburbs Fight Housing Plan They Say Will ‘Destroy’ Them

    SunCal Buys Oak Knoll Development for the Second Time

    New Zealand Using Plywood Banned Elsewhere

    Flint Water Suits Against Engineers Will Go to Trial, Judge Says

    Faulty Workmanship Claims Amount to Multiple Occurrences

    Newmeyer Dillion Secures Victory For Crown Castle In Years-Long Litigation With City Council Of Piedmont Over Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Sites

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim

    Condo Building Increasing in Washington D.C.

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    OSHA Updates: New Submission Requirements for Injury and Illness Records

    SB800 CONFIRMED AS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS

    Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects

    Court Addresses Damages Under Homeowners Insurance Policy

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Decrease on Fewer Investors

    The Hazards of Carrier-Specific Manuscript Language: Ohio Casualty's Off-Premises Property Damage and Contractors' E&O Endorsements

    Scott Saylin Expands Employment Litigation and Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2022 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas By U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    The Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    Digitalizing Cross-Laminated Timber Construction

    UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

    “License and Registration, Please.” The Big Risk of Getting Busted for Working without a Proper Contractor’s License

    PSA: Performing Construction Work in Virginia Requires a Contractor’s License

    Mediation Clause Can Stay a Miller Act Claim, Just Not Forever

    AAA Revises Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

    WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals
    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

    How SmartThings Wants to Automate Your Home

    July 02, 2014 —
    SmartThings, a U.S. start-up company, “has built a first-of-its-kind platform that allows the objects in your home–doors, locks, lightbulbs, even sprinkler systems–to talk to one another and prioritize your needs,” according to Time. The only requirements are a smartphone and a $200 starter kit. Alex Hawkinson created SmartThings after he returned from a family vacation and discovered that pipes had burst, resulting in a $100,000 repair bill: “How is it possible that someone hasn’t created something I could plug in that would alert me when something went wrong?” Hawkinson commented to Time. SmartThings got its start through Kickstarter (Ashton Kutcher was one of the investors), but is now a General Electric partner. Time reported that there are “legitimate fears of cybercriminals commandeering your smart locks and cameras [that] have made people wary of making their homes potentially hackable.” Hawkinson stated that SmartThings has hired “white-hat hackers to continuously probe SmartThings’ technology and pinpoint vulnerabilities that must be fixed.” “We’re at the outset of this wave where … your home can give you security, peace of mind and more,” Hawkinson told Time. “Eventually, everything that should be connected will be connected.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    An Obligation to Provide Notice and an Opportunity to Cure May not End after Termination, and Why an Early Offer of Settlement Should Be Considered on Public Works Contracts

    August 17, 2020 —
    In 2015, the City of Puyallup (“City”) and Conway Construction Company (“Conway”) executed a public works contract for road improvements (“Project”). On March 9, 2016, approximately four months after work started on the Project, the City issued Conway a notice of suspension and breach of contract and identified nine defective and uncorrected work and safety concerns. Conway denied any wrongdoing, and on March 25, 2016, the City issued a notice of termination for default and withheld payments due to Conway. Conway subsequently filed suit in Pierce County Superior Court and alleged the City’s termination for default breached the contract and sought a determination that the City’s termination for default was improper and should be deemed a termination for convenience. Conway sought approximately $1.25 million in damages and recovery of its attorney fees and costs. Following a bench trial, the Trial Court found the City breached the contract and awarded Conway damages, attorney fees, and costs. The City appealed.[1] On appeal, after affirming the trial court’s determination that the City improperly terminated Conway, the Court of Appeals considered two other issues raised by the City. First, whether the City was entitled to a set-off for replacing defective work discovered after Conway was terminated. Second, whether Conway is entitled to attorney fees if it did not make the statutorily required offer of settlement per RCW 39.04.240. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Kaatz, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Mr. Kaatz may be contacted at Jeff.Kaatz@acslawyers.com

    Endorsements Do Not Exclude Coverage for Wrongful Death Claim

    August 30, 2017 —
    The insurer's motion for summary judgment, attempting to bar coverage under two endorsements for a wrongful death suit, was denied. Essex Ins. Co. v. FD Event Co., LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124400 (C.D. Calif. July 25, 2017). FD Event owned an amusement attraction known as Free Drop, which was operated at county fairs and festivals. Participants paid an admission fee to FD Event in order to jump from a scaffold structure onto an inflatable airbag below. FD Event had a policy with Essex. When securing the policy, FD Event understood that there was no coverage for amusement devices, inflatables, rides or animals. 28th Event, who ran the San Bernardino County Fair, was an additional insured on the policy. 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

    Is it the End of the Story for Redevelopment in California?

    October 02, 2015 —
    Long, long ago (in 2012 to be exact) in a land not so far away (also known as California), legislation which allowed local governments to establish redevelopment agencies tasked with eliminating blight through the development, reconstruction and rehabilitation of residential, commercial, industrial and retail districts were abolished. Note: For a relatively concise history of redevelopment in California see the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s working paper Redevelopment Agencies in California: History, Benefits, Excesses, and Closure (January 2014). A quite war has been waged ever since. Cities, community development commissions, successor agencies to redevelopment agencies, nonprofit housing corporations and individual taxpayers have fought the legislation (AB 1X 26 (Blumenfield 2011)) which eliminated California’s 425 redevelopment agencies, principally, on constitutional grounds. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Retrofitting Buildings Is the Unsexy Climate Fix the World Needs

    November 19, 2021 —
    You may not have noticed unless you live in London, but protesters have been gluing their hands to the asphalt of the city’s thundering eight-lane M25 ring road, to the weirdly technocratic war cry of “Insulate Britain!” Frustrated commuters and the police officers who’ve had to peel these sticky activists from the road find them irritating. Yet they have a point. Among top producers of climate-harming emissions that world leaders plan to address at COP26 in Glasgow in November, buildings are the summit’s largely ignored Cinderella. Making homes and offices leak less heat and persuading the construction industry to give up its addiction to demolition and to energy-intensive materials such as concrete, plastics, and steel have so far proved less than appealing to governments in search of solutions to the climate challenge. Retrofitting is costly and disruptive for the voters who happen to live, in the U.K. alone, in the 28 million homes that need an upgrade. It also demands the systemic transformation of a fragmented industry that’s riddled with vested interests, says Stephen Good, chief executive of the Construction Scotland Innovation Centre along Glasgow’s southern underbelly. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Marc Champion, Bloomberg

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    April 14, 2011 —

    Assemblyman John Oceguera has written a bill that would redefine the term Construction Defect, set statutory limitations, and force the prevailing party to pay for attorney’s fees. Assembly Bill 401 has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

    Currently, the law in Nevada states that “a defect in the design, construction, manufacture, repair or landscaping of a new residence, of an alteration of or addition to an existing residence, or of an appurtenance, which is done in violation of law, including in violation of local codes or ordinances, is a constructional defect.” However, AB401 “provides that there is a rebuttable presumption that workmanship which exceeds the standards set forth in the applicable law, including any applicable local codes or ordinances, is not a constructional defect.”

    The Nevada courts may award attorney fees to the prevailing party today. However, AB401 mandates that attorney fees must be awarded, and the exact award is to be determined by the Court. “(1) The court shall award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees, which must be an element of costs and awarded as costs; and (2) the amount of any attorney’s fees awarded must be determined by and approved by the court.”

    AB401 also sets a three year statutory limit “for an action for damages for certain deficiencies, injury or wrongful death caused by a defect in construction if the defect is a result of willful misconduct or was fraudulently concealed.”

    This Nevada bill is in the early stages of development.

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

    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

    False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong

    January 20, 2020 —
    In April 2018, the Department of Justice announced a $5M settlement reached in its lawsuit against former professional cyclist, Lance Armstrong. While the fallout from Armstrong’s latently-admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) was well-publicized, including lost sponsorship deals, stripped Tour de France titles, and damage to his reputation, few were aware of Armstrong’s exposure to liability and criminal culpability for false claims against the government. The DOJ’s announcement reminded Armstrong and the rest of us of the golden rule of dealing with the government: honesty is the best policy. The corollary to that rule is that dishonesty is costly. Armstrong’s liability stemmed from false statements (denying the use of PEDs) he made, directly and through team members and other representatives, to U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) representatives and to the public. USPS was the primary sponsor of the grand tour cycling team led by Armstrong. The government alleged in the lawsuit that Armstrong’s false statements were made to induce USPS to renew and increase its sponsorship fees, in violation of the False Claims Act. The Statute Enacted in 1863, the False Claims Act (“FCA”) was originally aimed at stopping and deterring frauds perpetrated by contractors against the government during the Civil War. Congress amended the FCA in the years since its enactment, but its primary focus and target have remained those who present or directly induce the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The current FCA imposes penalties on anyone who knowingly presents “a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal Government. A “claim” now includes direct requests to the Government for payment, as well as reimbursement requests made to the recipients of federal funds under federal benefits programs (such as Medicare). Thirty-one states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have also enacted laws imposing penalties for false claims against state agencies and their subdivisions, with most of these laws modelled after the federal FCA. Reprinted courtesy of Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP and Alex Gorelik, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of