BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut stucco 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


    Sustainable, Versatile and Resilient: How Mass Timber Construction Can Shake Up the Building Industry

    Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

    No Signature, No Problem: Texas Court Holds Contractual Subrogation Waiver Still Enforceable

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

    The Dangers of an Unlicensed Contractor from Every Angle

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

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

    Insured's Complaint for Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Adequately Pleads Consequential Damages

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy

    Is the Event You Are Claiming as Unforeseeable Delay Really Unforeseeable?

    New York Developer gets Reprieve in Leasehold Battle

    The G2G Year in Review: 2019

    Opoplan Introduces Generative AI Tools for Home-Building

    California Case Is a Reminder That Not All Insurance Policies Are Alike Regarding COVID-19 Losses

    Stay of Coverage Case Appropriate While Court Determines Arbitrability of Dispute

    Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

    "Abrupt Falling Down of Building or Part of Building" as Definition of Collapse Found Ambiguous

    Visual Construction Diaries – Interview with Jeff Sassinsky of Fovea Aero

    Building Amid the COVID Challenge

    Builders Association Seeks to Cut Down Grassroots Green Building Program (Guest Post)

    Check The Boxes Regarding Contractual Conditions Precedent to Payment

    Hovnanian Reports “A Year of Solid Profitability”

    Orange County Team Obtains Unanimous Defense Verdict in Case Involving Failed Real Estate Transaction

    Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court

    Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Harmon Towers

    General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

    Condominium's Agent Owes No Duty to Injured Apartment Owner

    Columbus, Ohio’s Tallest Building to be Inspected for Construction Defects

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

    Is Your Home Improvement Contract Putting You At Risk?

    Corps, State Agencies Prep for Flood Risks From California Snowmelt Runoff

    The EPA and the Corps of Engineers Propose Another Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”

    Pennsylvania Sues Firms to Recoup Harrisburg Incinerator Losses

    Late Notice Bars Insured's Claim for Loss Caused by Hurricane

    Home Buyers will Pay More for Solar

    Spotting Problem Projects

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

    Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

    AI in Construction: What Does It Mean for Our Contractors?

    Pre-Covid Construction Contracts Unworkable as Costs Surge, Webuild Says

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Vik Nagpal, and Devin Gifford, and Associates Shelly Mosallaei and Melissa Youngpeter on Their Inclusion in 2024 Best Lawyers in America!

    Bad Faith Claim For Independent Contractor's Reduced Loss Assessment Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Blackstone Said in $1.7 Billion Deal to Buy Apartments

    DoD Issues Guidance on Inflation Adjustments for Contractors

    Architects Should Not Make Initial Decisions on Construction Disputes

    MBIA Seeks Data in $1 Billion Credit Suisse Mortgage Suit

    The ARC and The Covenants

    Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co.
    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

    Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors

    April 10, 2019 —
    In a recent decision, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a purchaser of a newly constructed home could not assert a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability against a subcontractor where the subcontractor had no contractual relationship with the purchaser. Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., 2018 IL 122022, ¶ 1. The decision overruled Minton v. The Richards Group of Chicago, which held that a purchaser who “has no recourse to the builder-vendor and has sustained loss due to the faulty and latent defect in their new home caused by the subcontractor” could assert a claim of a breach of the warranty of habitability against the subcontractor. 116 Ill. App. 3d 852, 855 (1983). In Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n, the plaintiff alleged that the condo building had several latent defects which made individual units and common areas unfit for habitation. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 3. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that privity should not be a factor in determining whether a claim for a breach of the warranty of habitability can be asserted. Id. at ¶ 19. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that claims for a breach warranty of habitability should not be governed by contract law but should instead be governed by tort law analogous to application of strict liability. Id. The Court reasoned that the economic loss rule, as articulated in Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69, 91 (1982), refuted the plaintiff’s argument that the implied warranty of habitability should be covered by tort law. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 20. Under the economic loss rule, a plaintiff “cannot recover for solely economic loss under the tort theories of strict liability, negligence, and innocent misrepresentation.” National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d at 91. The Court explained that the rule prevented plaintiffs from turning a contractual claim into a tort claim. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 21. The Court further noted that contractual privity is required for a claim of economic loss, and an economic loss claim is not limited to strict liability claims. Id. Because the plaintiff’s claim was solely for an economic loss, it was a contractual claim in nature; therefore, the Court concluded that “the implied warranty of habitability cannot be characterized as a tort.” Id. at ¶ 22. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Thomas Cronin, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Cronin may be contacted at tcronin@grsm.com

    Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

    June 18, 2014 —
    In Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality. In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    May Heat Wave Deaths Prompt New Cooling Rules in Chicago

    July 25, 2022 —
    Chicago (AP) -- A month after three women were found dead inside their stifling hot apartments at a Chicago senior housing facility, the City Council on Wednesday passed new cooling requirements for residential buildings. Under the rules approved by the Council's Zoning Committee on Tuesday and the full Council on Wednesday, any new construction of senior facilities and larger residential buildings must include permanent air conditioning, giving them the same requirements already in place for nursing homes. Any time the heat index climbs above 80 degrees, those buildings must run their air conditioning systems. Existing housing for older people can use portable cooling and dehumidification until May 2024, when they will be required to have permanent equipment installed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Colorado Trench Collapse Kills Two

    July 30, 2019 —
    Federal safety officials are investigating the April 16 collapse of a trench that killed two construction workers in northern Colorado. The two men—Cristopher Lee Ramirez, 26, and Jorge Baez Valadez, 41—were installing utilities at a site being developed by D.R. Horton Express Homes in Windsor, Colo., when they were trapped by soil and rocks in the 15-ft-deep trench. The rescue attempt lasted seven hours and involved small shovels because of fears of a second collapse. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend

    December 27, 2021 —
    In a win for policyholders, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a District Court’s 2018 ruling, which held that the duty to indemnify follows the duty to defend where a settlement precludes a determination on the facts of the case relative to liability and apportionment. In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co.,1 a large concrete panel collapsed and killed a construction worker at a construction site in New Kensington, Pennsylvania. Cost Company (“Cost”), Liberty Mutual’s insured, was a masonry subcontractor on the project and had further subcontracted with Pittsburgh Flexicore Co. (“Flexicore”), Penn National’s insured, for the concrete panels. Cost’s subcontract agreement required Flexicore to name Cost as an additional insured under its general liability policy issued by Penn National. When the construction worker’s widow filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Cost and Flexicore, Cost demanded that Penn National defend and indemnify it as an additional insured under the policy. Penn National refused, arguing that any additional insured status had terminated at the conclusion of Flexicore’s work for Cost. As a result, Liberty Mutual defended Cost in the lawsuit, which was ultimately settled. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com

    Perrin Construction Defect Claims & Trial Conference

    June 11, 2018 —
    Richard Glucksman, Esquire, Partner of the Los Angeles firm Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger, will be moderating the panel, “Green Building/LEED: An Overview and Claims Discussion” at the Perrin Construction Defect Claims & Trial Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. The panel will be discussing the following topics:
    • Risk and claims case studies including solar and SIPs (Structural Insulated Panels)
    • Green Building/LEED and The Law: Review of National Claims/Lawsuits
    • AIA Documents for Sustainable Projects
    Thursday, June 21st, 2018 Four Seasons Hotel 3960 S Las Vegas Blvd Las Vegas, NV 89119 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Updated Covid-19 Standards In The Workplace

    August 23, 2021 —
    With California reopening, many Californians will be heading back to the workplace soon and are wondering if employers may require their employees to get vaccinated. According to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), an employer may require employees to receive an FDA-approved vaccination against COVID-19 infection so long as the employer (a) does not discriminate against nor harass employees on the basis of a protected characteristic, (b) provides reasonable accommodations related to disability or sincerely-held religious beliefs, and (c) does not retaliate against anyone for engaging in protected activity.[1] On June 15, 2021, California lifted its mask mandate across the state. The California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) updated its guidance for the use of face coverings stating that masks are no longer required for fully vaccinated individuals.[2] However, masks are still required on public transit, indoors in k-12 schools, childcare, other youth settings, healthcare settings, long-term care facilities, correctional and detention facilities, and homeless shelters.[3] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP

    60-Mile-Long Drone Inspection Flight Points to the Future

    January 15, 2019 —
    Black & Veatch announced in December the successful conclusion of a 60-mile-log, non-stop, proof-of-concept drone-based inspection flight conducted by a remote pilot in a command center miles away in rural Illinois. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Sawyer, ENR
    Mr. Sawyer may be contacted at sawyert@enr.com