BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut forensic architect
    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


    Limitation on Coverage for Payment of Damages Creates Ambiguity

    BofA Said to Near Mortgage Deal for Up to $17 Billion

    Co-Founding Partner Jason Feld Named Finalist for CLM’s Outside Defense Counsel Professional of the Year

    Plaintiffs’ Claims in Barry v. Weyerhaeuser Company are Likely to Proceed after Initial Hurdle

    Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders

    New York Team’s Win Limits Scope of Property Owners’ Duties to Workers for Hazards Inherent in Their Work

    Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

    SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection

    OSHA Issues Fines for Fatal Building Collapse in Philadelphia

    Vincent Alexander Named to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite

    The COVID-19 Impact: Navigating the Legal Landscape’s New Normal

    "On Second Thought"

    Keller Group Fires Two Executives in Suspected Australia Profits Reporting Fraud

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Rises for First Time in Two Years

    Sobering Facts for Construction Safety Day

    2019 California Construction Law Update

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    Does Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code Impact Your Construction Project?

    Want to Build Affordable Housing in the Heart of Paris? Make It Chic.

    $17B Agreement Streamlines Disney World Development Plans

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

    California’s Prompt Payment Laws: Just Because an Owner Has Changed Course Doesn’t Mean It’s Changed Course on Previous Payments

    Thank You for 17 Years of Legal Elite in Construction Law

    How Contractors Can Prevent Fraud in Their Workforce

    How Machine Learning Can Help with Urban Development

    Will Superusers Future-Proof the AEC Industry?

    Party Loses Additional Insured Argument by Improper Pleading

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Increase 0.8% in November

    Traub Lieberman Partners Dana Rice and Jason Taylor Obtain Summary Judgment For Insurance Carrier Client in Missouri Federal Court Coverage Action

    How Berger’s Peer Review Role Figures In Potential Bridge Collapse Settlement

    Condo Owners Suing Bank for Failing to Disclose Defects

    No Coverage for Counterclaim Arising from Insured's Faulty Workmanship

    CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges

    Important Insurance Alert for Out-of-State Contractors Assisting in Florida Recovery Efforts!

    Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens

    Let’s Give ‘Em Sutton to Talk About: Tennessee Court Enforces Sutton Doctrine

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    EPA Fines Ivory Homes for Storm Water Pollution

    Drastic Rebuild Resurrects Graves' Landmark Portland Building

    Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

    Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis Obtain Affirmation of Final Summary Judgment

    Equitable Subrogation Part Deux: Mechanic’s Lien vs. Later Bank Deed of Trust

    Fix for Settling Millennium Tower May Start This Fall

    Amendments to California Insurance Code to Require Enhanced Claims Handling Requirements for Claims Arising Out Of Catastrophic Events

    Hunton Insurance Practice Receives Top (Tier 1) National Ranking by US News & World Report

    Multifamily Building Pushes New Jersey to Best Year since 2007

    Additional Elements a Plaintiff Must Plead and Prove to Enforce Restrictive Covenant

    OIRA Best Practices for Administrative Enforcement and Adjudicative Actions
    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

    Nobody Knows What Lies Beneath New York City

    August 10, 2017 —
    Before a single raindrop fell, Alan Leidner knew the waters could rise and throw the city into darkness. On this point, the maps were as clear as a crystal ball. All you had to do was look. It was 2010, and Leidner was consulting for the government services company Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., contracted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to identify potential threats and vulnerabilities in the nation’s critical infrastructure. Leidner was examining a region that included New York and New Jersey. One day he was thinking about the area’s electrical power grid. He consulted some flood projection maps the Federal Emergency Management Agency had prepared. Then he stared at a map of the grid maintained by Consolidated Edison Inc., the region’s power supplier. And it just jumped out at him: The substation at East 13th Street, on the banks of the East River, was smack in the middle of a flood zone. Leidner voiced his concerns with utilities, hospitals, and other major facilities. “The reaction was mostly, ‘Eh,’ ” he recalls, as we sit in the Tribeca offices of the Fund for the City of New York, where he directs the nonprofit organization’s Center for Geospatial Innovation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Milner, Bloomberg

    Construction Termination Part 3: When the Contractor Is Firing the Owner

    August 07, 2023 —
    Last week we discussed an Owner terminating a Contractor “for cause.” Today, it’s time for a 180: what is your role as the architect when the Contractor is quitting? First, be aware that there are valid reasons for a contractor to quit within the contract itself. Most of these have to do with either (a) time delays/stand stills or (b) failure of the Owner to make payments as required. The Contractor can suspend or terminate a contract with the Owner for cause, provided a 7 day written notice is given to Owner and Architect. See A201§14.1.3. (This can be an email notice as all AIA notice clauses now allow). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger

    April 20, 2017 —
    Unlike previous research into construction fatalities, a new review of three years of Labor Dept. data found that most occur between 10 am and 3 pm, with a peak at noon. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
    Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

    First Circuit Rejects Insurer’s “Insupportable” Duty-to-Cooperate Defense in Arson Coverage Suit

    October 24, 2023 —
    In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. BAS Holding Corp., the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected an insurer’s “insupportable” defense that the insured company had breached its duty to cooperate by refusing the insurer’s request for an examination under oath of the company’s president. The decision is a reminder that, while examinations under oath can be effective tools to allow the insurer to properly investigate a claim, an insured’s duty to cooperate is not boundless and does not demand attendance at examinations that are not reasonably requested. Background BAS Holding involves the destruction of a landmark building in Boston by an arsonist. The owner, BAS Holding Corporation, submitted an insurance claim to its property insurer to recover insurance proceeds for the damage to the building. The insurer investigated the claim to determine whether the damage to the building was covered and issued a reservation of rights letter suggesting that the policy may not provide coverage for the fire. As part of its investigation, the insurer requested an examination under oath as a condition to coverage under the policy, which led to BAS presenting the property’s operations coordinator for an interview. Shortly after examining the operations coordinator, the insurer sought another examination of BAS’s president and owner, as well as five other employees. In response, BAS questioned whether the additional examinations were “reasonably required” and said that it would consider the requests if the insurer could explain why they were necessary. Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    September 30, 2011 —

    The Missouri Court of Appeals has ruled in Ball v. Friese Construction Co., finding that Mr. Ball’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

    Mr. Ball hired Friese Construction Company to build a single-family home. The sale was completed on March 29, 2001. That December, Mr. Ball complained of cracks in the basement floor. SCI Engineering, n engineering firm, hired by Friese, determined that the home’s footing had settled and recommended that Mr. Ball hire a structural engineer to determine if the footings were properly designed and sized. In September 2002, the structural engineer, Strain Engineering, determined that the cracks were due to slab movement, caused in part by water beneath the slab, recommending measures to move water away from the foundation. In 2005, Mr. Ball sent Friese correspondence “detailing issues he was having with the home, including problems with the basement slab, chimney structure, drywall tape, and doors.” All of these were attributed to the foundation problems. In 2006, Friese stated that the slab movement was due to Ball’s failure to maintain the storm water drains.

    In 2009, Ball received a report from GeoTest “stating the house was resting on highly plastic clay soils.” He sued Friese in May, 2010. Friese was granted a summary judgment dismissing the suit, as the Missouri has a five-year statute of limitations. Ball appealed on the grounds that the extent of the damage could not be determined until after the third expert report. The appeals court rejected this claim, noting that a reasonable person would have concluded that after the conclusion of SCI and Strain Engineering that “injury and substantial damages may have occurred.”

    The court concluded that as there were not “continuing wrongs causing new and distinct damages,” he should have filed his lawsuit after the first two expert reports, not waiting seven years for a third expert to opine.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Rio de Janeiro's Bursting Real-Estate Bubble

    September 17, 2015 —
    At opposite ends of downtown Rio de Janeiro, projects tied to Donald Trump and Eike Batista-- one a billionaire-turned-politician, the other Brazil’s most famous ex-billionaire -- have come to represent the city’s real estate bust. The 23-story Serrador building, a granite-and-glass art deco tower near Rio’s Santos Dumont airport, has sat empty since Batista’s failed empire of commodities companies abandoned it last year. Four miles away, in the city’s gritty port district, an ambitious office project that Trump lent his name to is still nothing more than a weed-filled lot about a year after construction was slated to begin. Reprinted courtesy of Juan Pablo Spinetto, Bloomberg and Peter Millard, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

    August 19, 2015 —
    The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that cosmetic damage to the insured's roof was covered. Advance Cable Co., LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9805 (7th Cir. June 11, 2015). The insured submitted a claim to its insurer, Cincinnati, for damage to the metal roof of its building caused by a hail storm. The insured inspected the roof with a claims representative for Cincinnati. Dents were spotted, but there was little other evidence of damage. The loss was estimated at $1,894.74. A check for this amount was sent to the insured. Six months later, the insured considered selling the building. A potential buyer inspected the roof and found hail damage. At the request of the insured, Cincinnati conducted another inspection of the roof. Again, dents of approximately 1 inch in diameter were found. The inspector noted that the denting would not affect the performance of the roof panels or detract from their life expectancy. 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

    MDL Panel Grants Consolidation for One Group of COVID-19 Claims

    November 02, 2020 —
    Previously denying consolidation of all COVID-19 business interruption claims [post here], the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation allowed consolidation of one group of cases against Society Insurance Company while denying consolidation of four other groups of cases. In re Soc'y Ins. Co. COVID-19 Bus. Interruption Protection Ins. Litigation, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183678 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 2, 2020). Claims against Society encompassed 34 actions filed in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Tennessee. The court found that centralization of the Society actions would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions shared common factual allegations that Society wrongfully denied policy holders' claims for business interruption coverage. Plaintiffs contended that Society preemptively decided to deny their claims. 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