BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut fenestration 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


    Non-compliance With Endorsement Means No Indemnity Coverage

    Construction Termination Part 2: How to Handle Construction Administration When the Contractor Is Getting Fired

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (06/06/23) – Housing Woes, EV Plants and the Debate over Public Financing

    ENR 2024 Water Report: Managers Look to Potable Water Reuse

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”

    Is it the End of the Lease-Leaseback Shootouts? Maybe.

    Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

    Waiver Of Arbitration by Not Submitting Claim to Initial Decision Maker…Really!

    Dust Obscures Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling on “Direct Physical Loss”

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “It’s One, Two… Eight Strikes: You’re Out!”

    Contractors Pay Heed: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Two Important Issues For Bid Protestors

    Colorado Rejects Bill to Shorten Statute of Repose

    Former Superintendent Sentenced in Rhode Island Tainted Fill Case

    Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding

    Insured's Complaint Against Flood Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Angela Cooner Named "Top Lawyer" by Phoenix Magazine in Inaugural Publication

    Negligence of Property Appraiser

    Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home

    Ninth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Construction Defects Under California Law

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    When is a Residential Subcontractor not Subject to the VCPA? Read to Find Out

    Court of Appeals Confirms that King County Superior Court’s Jury Selection Process Satisfies Due Process Requirements

    ADP Says Payrolls at Companies in U.S. Increase 200,000

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

    Prison Time and Restitution for Construction Fraud

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports CDCCF Charity at 2014 WCC Seminar

    Proving Impacts to Critical Path to Defeat Liquidated Damages Assessment

    Improvements to AIA Contracts?

    TxDOT, Flatiron/Dragados Mostly Resolve Bridge Design Dispute

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/29/24) – Megaprojects on the Rise, Agency Guidance for CRE, and an Upbeat Forecast for Commercial Real Estate Investment

    Obtaining Temporary Injunction to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement

    ASCE Statement on Biden Administration Permitting Action Plan

    Extreme Rainfall Is Becoming More Frequent and Deadly

    Contract’s Definition of “Substantial Completion” Does Not Apply to Third Party for Purposes of SOL, Holds Court of Appeal

    Use Your Instincts when Negotiating a Construction Contract

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    A Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette Doctrine

    Insurer's Appeal of Jury Verdict Rejected by Tenth Circuit

    Federal Regulatory Recap: A Summary of Recent Rulemaking Actions Taken or Proposed Affecting the Energy Industry

    HB24-1014: A Warning Bell for Colorado Businesses Amid Potential Consumer Protection Changes

    Ruling Dealing with Constructive Changes, Constructive Suspension, and the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    Liebherr Claims Crane Not Cause of Brazil Stadium Construction Accident

    Some Construction Contract Basics- Necessities and Pitfalls

    Collapse Claim Dismissed

    Order for Appraisal Affirmed After Insureds Comply with Post-Loss Obligations

    Be a Good Neighbor: Protect Against Claims by an Adjacent Landowner During Construction

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    Yellen Has Scant Power to Relieve U.S. Housing Slowdown
    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

    Question of Parties' Intent Prevents Summary Judgment for Insurer

    December 02, 2015 —
    The insurer's and insured's intent as to which entities were to be insured prevented the insurer's motion for summary judgment. Chaus v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136311 (E.D. La. Oct. 5, 2015). Water damage from a broken pipe occurred at the insured's building. Blaze Chaus LLC owned the building.The building was occupied by two entities which provided health care services: Dr. Kelly G. Burkenstock, M.D. and Azure Spa, Inc. Dr. Burkenstock was the sole owner of all three entities. The application for commercial insurance was submitted by "Dr. Kelly G. Burkenstock, d/b/a/ Blaze Chaus LLC." The application requested a "Physicians and Surgeons Endorsement" and reflected that the business activities of the applicant as "Internal Medicine Doctor." 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

    Finding Highway Compromise ‘Tough,’ DOT Secretary Says

    May 05, 2014 —
    Divisions in Congress over boosting funding for bridge repairs and highway construction are making it difficult to pass a long-term measure in time to prevent a disruption in existing road projects, U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said. “I would say that we have a tough, a tough challenge ahead of us that hasn’t been solved for a long time,” Foxx said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. The Highway Trust Fund, financed by gasoline and diesel taxes, may soon not be able to meet its financial obligations, according to Foxx’s agency. The Obama administration on April 29 sent legislation to Congress proposing $302 billion for road and mass transit projects over four years, with part of the money coming from new taxes on company earnings overseas. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alan Levin, Bloomberg
    Mr. Levin may be contacted at alevin24@bloomberg.net

    The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

    September 17, 2014 —
    An elderly woman filed suit against the Town of Ocean City, Maryland, “after allegedly falling from her wheelchair because of a defective rubber warning mat on a resort street corner,” according to The Dispatch. The accident occurred when the woman’s wheelchair “struck one of the hard rubber warning mats on the handicap-accessible street corners.” The plaintiff is seeking “$750,000 in damages on three counts including negligence, strict liability and a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).” However, The Dispatch reported that it is not clear who is liable, since the sidewalk is owned and maintained by the town, but the State Highway Administration installed the rubber warning mats. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Rules that Collapse Coverage for Damage Caused “Only By” Specified Perils Violates Efficient Proximate Cause Rule and is Unenforceable

    January 26, 2016 —
    In Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co. (No. F069953, filed 12/11/15) a California appeals court held that policy wording that the collapse coverage for damage “caused only by” certain specified perils did not mean “solely” by those specified perils, but that coverage may nonetheless apply even if excluded causes contributed to the loss, under the Insurance Code section 530 and the efficient proximate cause rule. In Vardanyan, the insured made a claim for water damage from unknown origin to a rental house. An engineer concluded that the various sources of moisture—roof leaks, gutters and downspouts that did not channel the water away from the house, a faucet spraying water on the exterior of the house, leaking toilet and bathtub, and humidity—contributed to the damage to the house, along with poor construction, termite damage and decay. The insurer denied coverage citing multiple policy exclusions, including damage caused by seepage or leakage of water from a plumbing system; deterioration; mold, wet or dry rot; settling of foundations, walls or floors; earth movement; water damage; neglect; weather conditions; acts or decisions of any person; and faulty or defective design, workmanship, repair, construction, or maintenance. The insured retained a public adjuster who disagreed, in particular citing the policy’s “Other Coverage 9” coverage for collapse of a building or part of a building “caused only by one or more” of a list of perils, including hidden decay, hidden insect damage, and weight of contents, equipment, or people. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions

    December 16, 2019 —
    The U.S. Court of Appeals or the District of Columbia has recently issued two important rulings on the Clean Air Act in particular and administrative law in general: California Communities Against Toxics, et al., v. EPA and Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA. The Battle of the Memos: Seitz Makes Way for Wehrum In the California Communities case, decided on August 20, 2019, the court held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that a petition to review a change in EPA policy announced in an agency memorandum which reversed an agency policy announced nearly 25 years ago in another agency memo must be rejected because the memo at issue was not a “final agency action” subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In 1995, the “Seitz Memo,” which interpreted Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and addresses the regulation and control of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources, stated that once a source of toxic emissions is classified as “major,” the facility remains subject to regulation as a major source even if the facility makes changes to the facility to limit its potential to emit such toxics below the major source threshold. Then, in 2018 under a new administration, the “Wehrum Memorandum” was issued which reversed this policy and its interpretation of the law. (Both memos were issued without any kind of advance notice or opportunity to comment.) If a source takes steps to limit its potential to emit, then it may be regulated as an area source, and subject to less rigid regulation. The court majority held that the Wehrum Memo was not a final agency action and was not subject to judicial review when it was measured against both prongs of the “finality test” devised by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bennet v. Spear, 520 US 154 (1997) and US Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016). While the memo undoubtedly represented the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process, the memo had no direct and appreciable legal consequences, and not therefore being a final action, the case must be dismissed. Judge Rogers filed a strong dissenting opinion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim

    February 10, 2012 —

    Though the sagging roof is neither leaking nor a safety hazard, the town of Waynesville, North Carolina is suing the builder of its new fire station, as reported in the Smoky Mountain News. The engineers who examined the roof found a substantial number of loose bolts in the roof trusses. Additionally, the trusses themselves have become bent.

    Tom Galloway, Waynesville’s Town Manager said “it needs to be remedied and fixed.” He said that the builder, Construction Logic, “never indicated a willingness to fix the roof.” The town is seeking the cost of repair, which Galloway estimated could be $400,000, and an additional $30,000 in damages. The suit states that Construction Logic failed to follow the plan specifications for the roof.

    Read the full story…

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

    Negligence Against a Construction Manager Agent

    March 22, 2018 —

    Can a construction manager-agent / owner’s representative hired directly by the owner be liable to the general contractor in negligence? An argument likely posited by many general contractors on projects gone awry where there is a separate construction manager. Well, here is an interesting case out of Louisiana that supports a negligence claim against a construction manager-agent.

    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

    Nevada Judge says Class Analysis Not Needed in Construction Defect Case

    October 22, 2014 —
    According to the National Law Journal, “The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled it neither arbitrary nor capricious for a trial judge to decline to perform a class-action analysis in a lawsuit filed by a homeowners’ association against a general contractor over alleged defects.” Justice Michael Douglas stated, as quoted by the National Law Journal, “The district court was not required to conduct that analysis at this point in the litigation because nothing in the record indicates that the association sought to proceed as a class action.” The general contractor argued that the construction defect law did “not apply because the development’s units were no longer new residences once they were rented as apartments.” However, the justices declared “that the association can pursue its lawsuit for construction defects in common elements owned by multiple units as long as one unit is a new residence.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of