BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure 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


    2023’s Bank Failures: What Contractors, Material Suppliers and Equipment Lessors Can Do to Protect Themselves

    Los Angeles Wildfires Will Cause Significant Insured Losses, Ranking Amongst the Most Destructive in California's History

    Construction Leads World Trade Center Area Vulnerable to Flooding

    Fourth Circuit Questions EPA 2020 Clean Water Act 401 Certification Rule Tolling Prohibition

    When Do You Call Your Lawyer?

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2020

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

    Former Sponsor of the Lenox Facing Suit in Supreme Court

    Court Holds That Parent Corporation Lacks Standing to Sue Subsidiary’s Insurers for Declaratory Relief

    Texas Federal Court Finds Total Pollution Exclusion Does Not Foreclose a Duty to Defend Waterway Degradation Lawsuit

    Insurance Client Alert: Denial of Summary Judgment Does Not Automatically Establish Duty to Defend

    Reservation of Rights Letter Merely Citing Policy Provisions Inadequate

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    Named Insured’s Liability Found Irrelevant to Additional Insured’s Coverage Under a Landlords and Lessors Additional Insured Endorsement

    President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry

    Florida Appellate Courts Holds Underwriting Manuals are Discoverable in Breach of Contract Case

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

    How Data Drives the Future of Design

    Court of Appeal Holds Only “Named Insureds” May Sue for Bad Faith Under California FAIR Plan Policy

    Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

    McDermott International and BP Team Arbitrate $535M LNG Site Dispute

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/27/21)

    COVID-19 Pandemic Preference Amendments to Bankruptcy Code Benefiting Vendors, Customers, Commercial Landlords and Tenants

    Charlotte, NC Homebuilder Accused of Bilking Money from Buyers

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    Jersey City, New Jersey, to Get 95-Story Condo Tower

    The Risk of A Fixed Price Contract Is The Market

    The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion

    Specification Challenge; Excusable Delay; Type I Differing Site Condition; Superior Knowledge

    Discussing Parametric Design with Shajay Bhooshan of Zaha Hadid Architects

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect Case

    The Choice Is Yours – Or Is It? Anti-Choice-of-Laws Statutes Applicable to Construction Contracts

    Florida Chinese drywall, pollution exclusion, “your work” exclusion, and “sistership” exclusion.

    Pass-Through Subcontractor Claims, Liquidating Agreements, and Avoiding a Two-Front War

    Pine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime Mortgages

    Will They Blow It Up?

    TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida

    Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

    The ARC and The Covenants

    Power to the Office Worker

    Your Work Exclusion Applies to Damage to Tradesman's Property, Not Damage to Other Property

    The Right to Repair Act Means What it Says and Says What it Means

    Florida SB 2022-736: Construction Defect Claims

    Tokyo Building Flaws May Open Pandora's Box for Asahi Kasei

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    Contractor Covered for Voluntary Remediation Efforts in Completed Homes

    NAHB Examines Single-Family Detached Concentration Statistics

    Trump Administration Waives Border Wall Procurement Rules

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Alexander Moore Promoted to Managing Partner of Kahana Feld’s Oakland Office

    May 08, 2023 —
    Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that Alexander R. Moore, Esq., has been promoted to Managing Partner of our Oakland office. Mr. Moore has been at Kahana Feld since 2021 and is a member of the construction defect and general liability practice groups. Mr. Moore has over 23 years of experience representing individual and commercial clients in complex disputes arising out of construction contracts, construction defect allegations, premises liability matters, landlord-tenant disputes, and contractual disputes arising out of various business relationships involving financial services companies, technology companies, telecommunications companies, real estate brokerages, non-profits, and a range of small businesses. When not focused on litigation, Mr. Moore enjoys consulting on transactional matters including the development of construction and business contracts. He has extensive experience evaluating rights and obligations under construction contracts and related insurance programs. He also assists clients in the implementation of pre-litigation risk management strategies. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alexander R. Moore, Kahana Feld
    Mr. Moore may be contacted at amoore@kahanafeld.com

    WSHB Secures Victory in Construction Defect Case: Contractor Wins Bench Trial

    October 01, 2024 —
    Wood Smith Henning & Berman is pleased to announce a significant victory in a bench trial led by trial attorney Thomas Fama. The case, which had been pending for nearly five years due to pandemic-related delays and unreasonable demands by the plaintiff, concluded with a resounding judgment in favor of the defendant. "The result of this trial is a testament to our team's unwavering tenacity and strategic focus throughout the entire process," stated WSHB partner Tom Fama, lead counsel in the case. "We kept our eye on the proverbial ball and diligently worked to expose the lack of evidence supporting the plaintiff's claims." The matter involved allegations of defective installation of a solar energy system, which the plaintiff claimed leaked during inclement weather. Fama and his team successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff's claims lacked substance, highlighting numerous pre-existing conditions on the roof that could have been responsible for the problem. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wood Smith Henning & Berman

    Fewer NYC Construction Deaths as Safety Law Awaits Governor's Signature

    July 25, 2022 —
    The hoped-for progress in New York City construction safety is coming too late for laborer Jose Fortina Armenta Hernandez. At 8:37 a.m. on May 27, 2021, while jackhammering a roof section on a Brooklyn building, the section on which Armenta stood gave way and he fell 60 ft. When last year his family sent his body from New York City to Mexico to be buried, they used a GoFundMe page to raise money for the laborer's funeral. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Specific Performance of an Option Contract to Purchase Real Property is Barred Absent Agreement on All Material Terms

    December 20, 2017 —
    On November 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals (Division 1), in Offerman v. Granada, LLC, 2017 WL 5352664, reversed a trial court order directing specific performance of an alleged option to purchase real property, holding that the alleged option was too indefinite to be specifically performed because the parties did not agree to all of the material terms of the option. Tenant-Purchaser Offerman executed a two-year lease with Landlord-Seller Granada, which granted Offerman “the option to purchase [the] property…for a sales price to be determined at that time by an independent appraiser acceptable to both Tenant and Landlord. (Terms and Conditions to be stipulated by both parties at such time).” (emphasis added). Offerman timely advised Granada he intended to exercise the option, asked Granada to name an appraiser, and, when Granada did not respond, Offerman tendered a $240,000 appraisal to exercise the option. Granada did not retain an appraiser but instead simply demanded $350,000 to close the sale. After a bench trial, the Court determined that Offerman was entitled to specific performance, and, as the parties had not agreed to certain terms, held a second evidentiary hearing to resolve the form of judgment, therein naming a title agency to handle the escrow, setting a closing date, allocating the transaction fees between the parties, and ordering Granada to pay for the property inspection. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Herold, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Herold may be contacted at rherold@swlaw.com

    Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied

    August 10, 2021 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court determined that the insurer defending under a reservation of rights could not intervene in the underlying case after the insured assigned its rights to any bad faith claim against the insurer. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n, Inc., 2021 Colo. LEXIS 365 (Colo. May 24, 2021). Bolt Factory initiated a construction defects lawsuit against various contractors. Several defendants filed third-party complaints against subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Company. Auto-Owners agreed to defend its insured, Sierra Glass, under a reservation of rights. Auto-Owners declined to settle with Bolt Factory for $1.9 million, within policy limits. Sierra Glass then retains independent counsel and entered into a settlement with Bolt Factory. The settlement allowed Sierra Glass to assign its bad faith claims to Bolt Factory in exchange for the right to pursue the insurer for payment of the excess judgment rather than Sierra Glass. Instead of entering into a stipulated judgment, Bolt Factory and Sierra Glass proceeded to an abbreviated trial. 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

    ASCE Statement on House Passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024

    August 05, 2024 —
    WASHINGTON — The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) commends the House of Representatives for passing H.R. 8812, the bipartisan Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) for 2024. The House WRDA 2024 bill will help improve America's ports and inland waterways, enhance flood risk management and storm risk reduction programs, and prioritize ecosystem restoration. While we urge the Senate to swiftly vote on its version of WRDA, we are encouraged that our nation's critical water resources infrastructure remains a congressional priority. The House version of WRDA includes several key provisions to enhance the safety of America's dams and levees, which each received a 'D' on the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, as well as provisions to modernize the nation's inland waterways system, which received a 'D+' in the 2021 Report Card. This includes one of ASCE's top legislative priorities for this year, the reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program through 2028. But beyond the reauthorization, this bill reduces restrictions on the amount of funds states can receive in National Dam Safety Program State Assistance Grants; improves access to the High Hazard Potential Dam Rehabilitation Grant Program; and requires the incorporation of low-head dams into the National Inventory of Dams. Each of these provisions are critical to ensuring the long-term safety of our nation's dams and ASCE applauds the House for their inclusion. Furthermore, ASCE was pleased to see that the House legislation extends the National Levee Safety Program through 2033, which will help support the establishment of state levee safety programs, develop and publish national guidelines for levee safety, and enhance flood protection nationwide. While these measures are not included in the Senate version of WRDA, we encourage lawmakers to ensure they are included in a final conference version of the bill. We thank the House of Representatives for moving forward WRDA 2024 and strongly encourage the Senate to pass its version so that Congress can keep this vital water resources legislation on a biennial schedule and ensure our nation's dams, levees, ports, and inland waterways can support the American economy and protect public safety. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 160,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Lien Law and Substantial Compliance vs. Strict Compliance

    April 20, 2017 —
    There are literally some (or, perhaps, many!) disputes that will make you say “hmm!” The “hmm” is a euphemism for “what is a party thinking?!?” The case of Trump Endeavor 12 LLC v. Fernich, Inc., 42 Fla. L.Weekly D830a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) is one of these cases because a party (the owner) is banking its defense on a technical “all-or-nothing” argument pertaining to whether a lienor (a supplier) substantially complied with Florida’s Lien Law because a supplier’s Notice to Owner identified the wrong general contractor. This is a challenging argument because the owner has to prove how they were adversely affected / prejudiced by the lack of substantial compliance, which is not an easy burden. This case concerns the Trump National Doral Miami project. The project consisted of a lodge project and a separate clubhouse project, both of which had different general contractors. On the lodge project, the general contractor hired a painter which, in turn, procured paint from a supplier (the lienor). The supplier visited the project and obtained the Notice of Commencement from the owner so that it could perfect its lien rights. The owner furnished the supplier the Notice of Commencement for the clubhouse project that had a different general contractor. Relying on this Notice of Commencement, the supplier served a Notice to Owner. The Notice to Owner was timely serviced however it identified the wrong contractor – it identified the general contractor for the clubhouse project instead of the lodge project. Although the supplier later learned there was a different general contractor on the lodge project, it did not remedy the issue by serving a Notice to Owner on the correct contractor. Indeed, the contractor for the lodge project learned of the Notice to Owner furnished by the supplier and that the supplier was furnishing paint to the painting subcontractor for purposes of that project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

    California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

    October 02, 2018 —
    In its recent decision in Essex Walnut Owner L.P. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138276 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California had occasion to consider the issue of a pollution liability insurer’s obligation to pay for the redesign of a structural support system necessitated by the alleged presence of soil contamination. Aspen’s insured, Essex, owned a parcel of property it was in the process of redeveloping for commercial and residential purposes. The project required excavation activities in order to construct an underground parking lot, and as part of this process, Essex designed a temporary shoring system comprising tied-in retaining walls in order to stabilize the area outside of the excavation. During the excavation work, construction debris was encountered requiring removal. Aspen agreed to pay for a portion of the costs to remove and dispose the debris under the pollution liability policy it issued to Essex. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
    Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com