BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    Code Changes Pave Way for CLT in Tall Buildings and Spark Flammability Debate

    Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

    EPA Expands Energy Star, Adds Indoor airPLUS

    Lawsuit Decries Environmental Assessment for Buffalo, NY, Expressway Cap Project

    Court Rules Planned Development of Banning Ranch May Proceed

    Buffett’s $11 Million Beach House Is Still on the Market

    Motion to Dismiss Insureds' Counterclaim on the Basis of Prior Knowledge Denied

    Allocating Covered and Uncovered Damages in Jury Verdict

    Tesla Powerwalls for Home Energy Storage Hit U.S. Market

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

    Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay

    Toll Brothers Snags Home Builder of the Year Honors at HLS

    Residential Interior Decorator Was Entitled to Lien and Was Not Engaging in Unlicensed Contracting

    Cracked Girders Trigger Scrutiny of Salesforce Transit Center's Entire Structure

    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

    Third Circuit Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Despite Insured’s Expectations

    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

    The Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight Back

    White and Williams Announces the Election of Five Lawyers to the Partnership and the Promotion of Five Associates to Counsel

    Reasonableness of Liquidated Damages Determined at Time of Contract (or, You Can’t Look Back Again)

    Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact

    A New Lawsuit Might Change the Real Estate Industry Forever

    Two Firm Members Among the “Best Lawyers in America”

    Craig Holden Named Top 100 Lawyer by Los Angeles Business Journal

    Washington Court of Appeals Divisions Clash Over Interpretations of the Statute of Repose

    Erdogan Vows to Punish Shoddy Builders Ahead of Crucial Election

    The Unwavering Un-waivable Implied Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability in Arizona

    Fence Attached to Building Covered Under Dwelling Provisions

    Construction Defect Bill Removed from Committee Calendar

    Pennsylvania Finds Policy Triggered When Property Damage Reasonably Apparent

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    A Few Green Building Notes

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law

    Court Finds That Limitation on Conditional Use Permit Results in Covered Property Damage Due to Loss of Use

    Ackman Group Pays $91.5 Million for Condo at NYC’s One57

    With Vice President's Tie-Breaker, US Senate Approves Far-Reaching Climate Bill

    Preventing Acts of God: Construction Accidents Caused by Outside Factors

    Arizona Court Determines Statute of Limitations Applicable to a Claim for Reformation of a Deed of Trust (and a Related Claim for Declaratory Judgment)

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    Amazon Can be Liable in Louisiana

    Obama Says Keystone Decision May Be Announced in Weeks or Months

    Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

    Why Financial Advisers Still Hate Reverse Mortgages

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    Hunton Partner Michael Levine Appointed to Law360’s 2024 Insurance Authority Property Editorial Advisory Board

    Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

    Tiny Houses Big With U.S. Owners Seeking Economic Freedom

    Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act

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

    Nebraska Joins the Ranks—No CGL Coverage for Faulty Work

    September 17, 2014 —
    The Nebraska Court of Appeals has ruled that a home builder that fails to adequately compact the soil does not have insurance coverage to repair damages to the home caused by the settling soil. In “insurance speak”, there was no occurrence to trigger coverage. In this case, Cizek Homes, Inc. v Columbia National Insurance Company, a home builder contracted with a buyer to build a house. A lot was selected and the home was built. After the buyer moved in, the house started to settle, causing damage to the house. The buyer told the builder about these problems and the builder agreed to fix the problems. The builder also contacted its insurance company and requested coverage for the buyer’s claim. The insurer rejected the claim, determining that the buyer’s claim was not covered by the builder’s Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance. The insurer then filed suit asking the court to interpret the insurance policy and to determine whether the CGL insurance covered the claim. The court looked to the buyer’s allegations that the builder failed to construct the home in accordance with accepted construction and industry standards and that the builder was negligent in designing and constructing the home. The builder admitted that it was obligated to pay for the costs of repairs, but denied that it was negligent in constructing the home. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Inverse Condemnation and Roadwork

    October 09, 2023 —
    The following case, issued yesterday by the Georgia Supreme Court, addresses the accrual of the statute of limitations on a claim of inverse condemnation based on nuisance. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc. v. Forsyth Cnty., S22G0874, 2023 WL 6065278 (Ga. Sept. 19, 2023) We granted certiorari in this case to clarify the standards for determining when a claim for inverse condemnation by permanent nuisance accrues for purposes of applying the four-year statute of limitation set forth in OCGA § 9-3-30 (a). [. . .] Permanent nuisance cases vary in relation to when the alleged harm to a plaintiff’s property caused by the nuisance becomes “observable” to the plaintiff. Forrister, 289 Ga. at 333 (2), 711 S.E.2d 641. In some cases, the harm to the plaintiff’s property is immediately observable “upon the creation of the nuisance.” Id. For example, where a landowner or governmental agency “erects a harmful structure such as a bridge or conducts a harmful activity such as opening a sewer that pollutes a stream,” and it is immediately obvious that the structure or activity interferes with the plaintiff’s interests, the plaintiff must file “one cause of action for the recovery of past and future damages caused by [the] permanent nuisance” within four years of the date the structure is completed or the harmful activity is commenced. Id. at 333-336 (2) and (3), 711 S.E.2d 641 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 899 and 930). Phrased another way, where the “construction and continuance” of the permanent nuisance at issue is “necessarily an injury, the damage is original, and may be at once fully compensated. In such cases[,] the statute of limitations begins to run upon the construction of the nuisance.” City Council of Augusta v. Lombard, 101 Ga. 724, 727, 28 S.E. 994 (1897). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Miller Act Statute of Limitations and Equitable Tolling

    July 11, 2022 —
    When it comes to a Miller Act payment bond claim, there is a one-year statute of limitations—“The Miller Act contains a statute of limitations provision that requires actions to ‘be brought no later than one year after the day on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the claim.’” U.S. f/u/b/o Techniquex Specialty Flooring, Inc., v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 2022 WL 169070, *3 (M.D.Penn. 2022) (citing the Miller Act). There is an argument, albeit a difficult one, to support an equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. This would be an argument filed when the one-year statute of limitations expires, but there is reason for missing the statute of limitations caused typically by the overt misleading of the defendant (surety/bond-principal):
    “Equitable tolling functions to stop the statute of limitations from running where the claim’s accrual date has passed.” “Equitable tolling is appropriate in three situations: (1) when the defendant has actively misled the plaintiff respecting the facts which comprise the plaintiff’s cause of action; (2) when the plaintiff in some extraordinary way has been prevented from asserting his rights; and (3) when the plaintiff has timely asserted his rights in the wrong forum.” The first ground for equitable tolling“appears to be the same, in all important respects” to equitable estoppel, which “excuses late filing where such tardiness results from active deception on the part of the defendant” and “what courts describe as ‘equitable tolling’ is encompassed by the latter two parts of our Circuit’s doctrine.” The extraordinary circumstances standard may be met “where the defendant misleads the plaintiff, allowing the statutory period to lapse; or when the plaintiff has no reasonable way of discovering the wrong perpetrated against her …” Tehniquex, supra, at *5 (internal citations omitted).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Fourth Circuit Rejects Application of Wrap-Up Exclusion to Additional Insured

    December 11, 2018 —
    Utilizing an owner-controlled or contractor-controlled insurance program (collectively known as “wrap-ups”) can reduce claims, save costs, and give owners and general contractors comfort in knowing their project is adequately insured. However, problems often arise when a subcontractor doesn’t enroll in the wrap-up and, instead, agrees to provide additional insured coverage to the owner and general contractor on the subcontractor’s own general liability policy. One of those problems is the prevalence of wrap-up exclusions on subcontractors’ general liability policies. If the wrap-up exclusion is too broadly drafted, the exclusion can eliminate coverage for the general contractor and owner even when the subcontractor is not enrolled in the wrap-up. Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Samantha M. Oliveira, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com Mr. Oliveira may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Customer’s Agreement to Self-Insure and Release for Water Damage Effectively Precludes Liability of Storage Container Company

    December 16, 2019 —
    In Kanovsky v. At Your Door Self Storage (No. B297338; filed 11/25/19), a California appeals court held that a waiver of liability and agreement to self-insure in a storage container contract barred coverage for water damage to goods stored in the container. In Kanovsky, plaintiffs contracted for portable storage containers when moving. They loaded their washing machine into one of the containers without checking whether it was fully drained. They locked the containers and reopened them four years later to discover water damage to the contents. They sued the storage company, alleging causes of action for breach of contract; tortious breach of covenant; negligence; and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code section 1750. The storage company’s insurer intervened and moved for summary judgment, which was granted. The appeals court affirmed. The storage company’s contract contained a release of liability stating that personal property was stored “at the customer’s sole risk” and the owners “shall not be liable for any damage or loss,” including water damage. Further, the contract stated that the containers were not waterproof, and again that the storage company was not liable for water damage. The contract attached an addendum further stating that the owner was “a landlord renting space, is not a warehouseman, and does not take custody of my property.” The addendum went on with an acknowledgement that the owner: “2. Is not responsible for loss or damage to my property; 3. Does not provide insurance on my property for me; and 4. Requires that I provide my own insurance coverage or be ‘Self-Insured’ (personally assume risk of loss or damage).” 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

    No Signature? Potentially No Problem for Sureties Enforcing a Bond’s Forum Selection Clause

    March 21, 2022 —
    One of the foundational tenets of contract law is that a party may only be bound by terms they agree to, or in other words, if the party did not sign a contract, that party cannot be bound by the terms thereof. While this principle is generally unwavering, there are certain situations in which a non-signatory to a contract may still be bound by the terms of a contract. In particular, this non-signatory issue may arise when a payment bond claimant makes a bond claim, subsequently files a lawsuit, but the bond contains a forum selection clause different than the venue of the lawsuit and the surety seeks to enforce the bond’s forum selection clause. For example, the claimant may have filed its lawsuit against the surety in federal court, even though the bond provides language specifically mandating that no lawsuit shall be commenced by any claimant other than in a state court where the project is located. Thus, the question then becomes, can the surety enforce the forum selection clause against the claimant when the claimant did not sign the bond and/or never agreed to the terms thereof? The short answer, it depends (yes, that is a very lawyer-like answer). Given recent case law over the past decade, however, the surety has a strong argument in favor of enforcement of the forum selection clause. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian C. Padove, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Mr. Padove may be contacted at bpadove@watttieder.com

    Massive Danish Hospital Project Avoids Fire Protection Failures with Imerso Construction AI

    December 23, 2023 —
    Ensuring regulatory compliance of firewall constructions is getting a high-tech boost. Over the past 16 months, the construction team responsible for the iconic new Nyt Hospital Nordsjælland near Copenhagen used Imerso construction AI technology to achieve remarkable results. By using Imerso, the team enhanced work productivity while preventing costs and delays worth €5.2 million during the construction of the superstructure. Inspired by this success, the team led by Project Manager Anders Kaas has since been eager to explore the potential of the technology in other areas. The opportunity arose to address a topic that has traditionally posed significant challenges and expenses in numerous construction projects – ensuring regulatory compliance of fire barriers and firewall constructions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Construction Delays: Which Method Should Be Used to Calculate Delay?

    July 25, 2021 —
    If you need to prove and allocate construction project delays, you should engage a scheduling consultant qualified with CPM (critical path method) analysis. You should also engage counsel to assist in preserving your rights, as well as presenting and maximing your arguments for delay. There are numerous methodologies used to quantify and allocate delay. You want to discuss the most effective analysis for your case and facts including whether you want/should use a forward-looking prospective analysis or a backward-looking retrospective analysis that factors in as-built data. In doing so, you want to make sure you understand the pros and cons of each methodology including the bases to attack the methodology that will be subject to cross-examination. The five primary CPM methodologies are as follows:
    1. As-Planned Versus As-Built. This methodology compares the as-planned baseline schedule to an as-built schedule reflecting progress to assign delay. An as-built schedule that reflects progress includes actual start dates, finish dates, and durations. The actual dates and durations are compared with the as-planned dates and durations on the baseline schedule to determine delay. Under this methodology, the delay impact is determined retrospectively.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com