BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    Erasing Any Doubt: Arizona FED Actions Do Not Accrue Until Formal Demand for Possession is Tendered

    #9 CDJ Topic: Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al.

    Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

    Maybe Supervising Qualifies as Labor After All

    Vacation during a Project? Time for your Construction Documents to Shine!

    Understanding Insurance Disputes in Construction Defect Litigation: A Review of Acuity v. Kinsale

    Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton

    Sarah P. Long Expands Insurance Coverage Team at Payne & Fears

    Corrective Action Protest Grounds for GSA Schedule Federal Construction Contractors

    Ill-fated Complaint Fails to State Claims Against Broker and FEMA

    "My Bad, I Thought It Was in Good Faith" is Not Good Enough - Contractor Ordered to Pay Prompt Payment Penalties

    Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 49 White and Williams Attorneys

    2018 California Construction Law Update

    It’s Time to Include PFAS in Every Property Related Release

    Canada Home Resales Post First Fall in Eight Months

    World-Famous Architects Design $480,000 Gazebos for Your Backyard

    Construction Defect Disputes: Know Your Measure of Damages!!!!!

    The “Climate 21 Project” Prepared for the New Administration

    Maryland Finally set to Diagnose an Allocation Method for Progressive Injuries

    KB Homes Sues Condo Buyers over Alleged Cybersquatting and Hacking

    A Year-End Review of the Environmental Regulatory Landscape

    Local Government’s Claims on Developer Bonds Dismissed for Failure to Pursue Administrative Remedies

    General Contractor Supporting a Subcontractor’s Change Order Only for Owner to Reject the Change

    Mitigation, Restructuring and Bankruptcy: Small Business Tools in the Era of COVID-19

    Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

    Social Distancing and the Impact on Service of Process Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    Louisiana 13th in List of Defective Bridges

    Toronto Skyscraper With $1.2 Billion of Debt Has Been Put in Receivership

    Can I Be Required to Mediate, Arbitrate or Litigate a California Construction Dispute in Some Other State?

    Understanding Lien Waivers

    Boston Building Boom Seems Sustainable

    Collapse of Breezeway Attached to Building Covered

    Issues of Fact Prevent Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    Hurry Up and Wait! Cal/OSHA Hits Pause on Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention

    Good Indoor Air Quality Keeps Workers Healthy and Happy

    Negligent Failure to Respond to Settlement Offer Is Not Bad Faith

    Read the Property Insurance Policy to be Sure You are Complying with Post Loss Obligations

    Construction Professionals Could Face More Liability Exposure Following California Appellate Ruling

    New York Court Permits Asbestos Claimants to Proceed Against Insurers with Buyout Agreements

    An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

    Environmental Justice Update: The Justice40 Initiative

    Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

    Understanding the Details: Suing Architects and Engineers Can Get Technical

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

    Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged

    Storm Eunice Damage in U.K. Could Top £300 Million

    Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - The Mediator's Proposal
    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

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” in four practice areas and Tier 2 in one practice area by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2021

    November 30, 2020 —
    Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2021 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with five metro rankings in the following areas: Los Angeles
    • Tier 1
      • Insurance Law
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs
    • Tier 2
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    February 07, 2018 —
    In September 2017, a Texas Federal district judge ruled that that Personal and Advertising Injury coverage in a CGL policy did not require physical occupancy in a landlord-tenant dispute. In the underlying lawsuit, restaurant owner Ziggy Gruber alleged that John Dunn, the landlord of a Houston shopping center, wrongfully interfered with his right of occupancy at the shopping center by failing to complete the negotiation of a lease and preventing his occupancy of the space. Gruber further alleged that he had acquired a direct interest in the premises and became a rightful tenant but as a result of Dunn’s interference, he was never able to open his restaurant. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Afua Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com

    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Court of Appeals of Texas has ruled in the case of Barzoukas v. Foundation Design. Mr. Barzoukas contracted with Heights Development to build a house. He subsequently sued Heights Developments and “numerous other defendants who participated in the construction of his house.” Barzoukas eventually settled with all but two defendants, one who went bankrupt and Foundation Design, the defendant in this case. In the earlier phase, Barzoukas made claims of “negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, and exemplary damages in connection with the foundation.”

    Foundation Design had been hired to install 15-foot piers to support the foundation. The engineer of record, Larry Smith, sent a letter to Heights Development noting that they had encountered hard clay stone when drilling. Smith changed the specifications to 12-foot piers. Initially, the City of Houston called a halt to work on the home when an inspector concluded that the piers were too shallow. Heights Development later convinced the city to allow work to continue. Subsequently, experts concluded that the piers were too shallow.

    Foundation Design filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted this, “without specifying the basis for its ruling.” Barzoukas contends the court was in error. Foundation Design contends that “Barzoukas failed to proffer competent evidence establishing that their conduct proximately caused damages.” Further, they did not feel that Smith’s letter gave “rise to viable claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement.”

    One problem the court had was a lack of evidence. The court noted that “the purported subcontract is entirely missing” in the pleadings. The court has no contract between Bazourkas and Heights Development, nor one between Heights Development and either Foundation Design or Smith. The court underscored the importance of this, writing, “details matter.” They found that “the details are largely missing here.” Without the contract, the court found it impossible to determine if “Smith or an entity related to him agreed to indemnify Heights Development for damages arising from Smith’s negligent performance.”

    As the material facts are in dispute, the appeals court found that there were no grounds for a summary judgment in the case. “Pointing to the existence of a contract between Heights Development and Barzoukas, or to the existence of a subcontract, is the beginning of the analysis ? not the end.”

    Foundation Design and Smith also claimed that Barzoukas’s expert did not proffer competent evidence and that the expert’s opinions were conclusory. The trial court did not rule on these claims and the appeals court has rejected them.

    Finally, Barzoukas made a claim that the trial court should not have rejected his argument of fraud and fraudulent inducement. Here, however, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court. “Barzoukas did not present evidence supporting an inference that Smith or Foundation Design made a purposeful misrepresentation.

    The court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration. One member of the panel, Judge Charles Seymore, upheld the entire decision of the trial court. He dissented with the majority, finding that the economic loss rule foreclosed the claim of negligence.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    April 02, 2014 —
    For those who are attending the West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar May 15th-16th, the Construction Defect Journal has compiled a list of concerts, sporting events, and museum exhibitions taking place in and around Anaheim that week. Whether you like to spend your personal time checking out a new band, or watching your favorite Angel slide into home, or perusing the local art museum, there is something to spark your interest. CONCERT VENUES THE HOUSE OF BLUES IN ANAHEIM Blessthefall with Silverstein, The Amity Affliction, SECRETS and Heartist Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 Doors Open at 6pm / Show Begins at 7pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... THE HOUSE OF BLUES IN ANAHEIM Stephen "Ragga" Marley Saturday, May 17th, 2014 Doors Open at 8pm / Show Begins at 9pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... THE GROVE OF ANAHEIM Lindsey Stirling plus special guest Dia Frampton Wednesday, May 14, 2014 Doors Open at 7pm / Show Begins at 8pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... THE GROVE OF ANAHEIM Primal Fear Thursday, May 15, 2014 Doors Open at 6:30pm / Show Begins at 7pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... THE GROVE OF ANAHEIM Jillian Michaels 'Maximize Your Life' Tour Friday, May 16, 2014 Doors Open at 6pm / Show begins at 8pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... SPORTING EVENTS ANGEL’S STADIUM - BASEBALL The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim v. Tampa Bay Rays Thursday, May 15th at 7:05pm Friday, May 16th at 7:05pm Saturday, May 17th at 6:05pm Sunday, May 18th at 12:35pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... MUSEUM EXHIBITIONS MUZEO Transcending Trash: The Art of Upcycling Sat Apr 26 – Sun Aug 31, 2014 Museum Days/Hours: Tuesday – Sunday (Closed Mondays) / 10 am to 5 pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... BOWERS MUSEUM (Santa Ana) BEETHOVEN: THE LATE GREAT February 8, 2014 - May 18, 2014 Museum Days/Hours: Tuesday – Sunday (Closed Mondays) / 10 am to 4 pm For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    General Contractors Have Expansive Common Law and Statutory Duties To Provide a Safe Workplace

    February 18, 2020 —
    On November 21, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court handed down its decision in Vargas v. Inland Washington, LLC.[1] At the time of the incident in May 2013, Mr. Vargas, the plaintiff, was helping pour the concrete walls for what would become a parking garage for an apartment building. He was employed by Hilltop Concrete Construction. Inland Washington was the general contractor, and subcontracted with Hilltop to pour concrete. Hilltop, in turn, entered into agreements with Ralph’s Concrete Pumping and Miles Sand & Gravel to provide a pump truck, certified pump operator, and supply concrete. A rubber hose carrying concrete whipped Mr. Vargas in the head. It knocked him unconscious and caused a traumatic brain injury. Vargas, through his guardian ad litem, along with his wife and children, sued Inland Washington, Ralph’s, and Miles. The trial court initially dismissed on summary judgment Vargas’ claims that Inland Washington was vicariously liable for the acts of Hilltop, Ralph’s, and Miles. Later, the trial court also granted Inland Washington’s motion for summary judgment that it was not directly liable as a matter of law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman Jr., Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Cressman may be contacted at paul.cressman@acslawyers.com

    California’s Fifth Appellate District Declares the “Right to Repair Act” the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    September 03, 2015 —
    August 26, 2015 - The Fifth Appellate District ruled SB800 (California's "Right to Repair Act" [the "Act"]) provides the sole remedy for homeowners in construction defect actions. The court found "no other cause of action is allowed to recover for repair of the defect itself or for repair of any damage caused by the defect." (McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court of California (Aug. 26, 2015, No. F069370) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2015 WL 5029324].) The court issued a blistering criticism of the Fourth Appellate District's prior opinion in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which severely limited the reach of the Act to actions not involving property damage and allowing property damage claims to proceed freely under common law without any constraints posed by the Act. In McMillin, the court reviewed whether a homeowner was required to follow the Act's prelitigation procedures even after dismissing a cause of action arising under the Act. In deciding the issue, the court quoted directly from the first line of the Act (Civ. Code § 896) and found "[i]n any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction … , the claimant's claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of" the standards set out in the Act. The court recognized the statutory exceptions to this rule, such as for claims arising under contract, or any action for fraud, personal injuries, or statutory violations. (Civ. Code., § 943.) However, this result directly conflicts with the Fourth Appellate District's decision in Liberty Mutual, which found homeowners can circumvent the entire Act by simply alleging property damage claims. McMillin rejects Liberty Mutual's "reasoning and outcome" as being inconsistent with the express language of the Act. McMillin found that Liberty Mutual failed to fully analyze the statutory language of the Act, which (on its face) limits any action for construction deficiencies to the requirements of the Act. McMillin concludes the Legislature intended that all construction defect actions (for new residences sold on or after January 1, 2003), are subject to the requirements of the Act, including the prelitigation procedures, regardless of whether a complaint expressly alleges a cause of action under the Act or not. McMillin is a great victory for homebuilders, but battle lines are now clearly drawn between the two appellate districts. McMillin directly conflicts with Liberty Mutual, and because of this conflict, the issue will need to be resolved by the California Supreme Court. Until such review is granted, the conflict will remain and trial courts will likely continue to conflate the issue. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP
    Mr. Sunseri may be contacted at ssunseri@gdandb.com

    Designers Face Fatal Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Fallout

    December 08, 2016 —
    The use of “severely notched” end connections in the design of timber bridge girders that failed, sending a pair of partly completed pedestrian bridges crashing to the ground—and killing one worker—has come back to haunt the bridge engineer, architect of record and material supplier. The design detail had provoked concerns that were not fully addressed before the November 2014 accident at Wake Technical Community College in Raleigh, N.C., during an expansion project that involved several buildings and the bridges. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com

    Big Data Meets Big Green: Data Centers and Carbon Removal Compete for Zero-Emission Energy

    October 15, 2024 —
    Artificial intelligence, data centers, carbon removal and zero-emission power may sound like a winning line (plus the Free Space) on a 2024 Buzzword Bingo card. But the concepts have come into dramatic real-world tension as private and public actors seek to accommodate the digital and environmental imperatives for green energy. After years of fairly stable demand, punctuated by declines during the pandemic and economic slumps, electricity demand is projected to double by 2050. A principal cause is the rapid expansion in the power needed to energize and cool servers amid explosive growth in the number and size of data centers, crypto miners, and other point sources of computation. Data centers were 3% of U.S. demand and are projected to be up to 9% or more by 2030; AI will drive a 160% surge in data center demand by 2030. A commentator notes, “We haven’t seen [growth like] this in a generation.” Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury, Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury and Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of