BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    Some Construction Contract Basics- Necessities and Pitfalls

    Tetra Tech-U.S. Cleanup Dispute in San Francisco Grows

    Public Law Center Honors Snell & Wilmer Partner Sean M. Sherlock As Volunteers For Justice Attorney Of The Year

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

    California Supreme Court Holds that Design Immunity Does Not Protect a Public Entity for Failure to Warn of Dangerous Conditions

    Construction Contract Basics: Indemnity

    Nondelegable Duties

    Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings

    The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

    Techniques for Resolving Construction Disputes

    “Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

    Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

    Need and Prejudice: An Eleventh-Hour Trial Continuance Where A Key Witness Is Unexpectedly Unavailable

    Construction Mediation Tips for Practitioners and 'Eyes Only' Tips for Construction Mediators

    Court Finds Matching of Damaged Materials is Required by Policy

    It Pays to Review the ‘Review the Contract Documents’ Clause Before You Sign the Contract

    Collapse of Underground Storage Cave Not Covered

    Alabama Court Determines No Coverage For Insured's Faulty Workmanship

    California Contractors: New CSLB Procedure Requires Non-California Corporations to Associate All Officers with Their Contractor’s License

    Colorado’s Workers’ Compensation Act and the Construction Industry

    How the Science of Infection Can Make Cities Stronger

    Parks and Degradation: The Mess at Yosemite

    Discussion of the Discovery Rule and Tolling Statute of Limitations

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

    Stick to Your Guns on Price and Pricing with Construction Contracts

    Mexico City Metro Collapse Kills 24 After Neighbors’ Warnings

    North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies Breadth of Contractual Liability Coverage

    Distressed Home Sales Shrinking

    Two Lawyers From Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group, Andrea DeField and Latosha Ellis, Selected for American Bar Association’s 2022 “On The Rise” Award

    Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Bars Coverage for Collapse of Building

    New-Home Sales in U.S. Unexpectedly Fall to Four-Month Low

    Sellers' Alleged Misrepresentation Does Not Amount To An Occurrence

    Construction of New U.S. Homes Declines on Plunge in South

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolute Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    Mediation v. Arbitration, Both Private Dispute Resolution but Very Different Sorts

    Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language

    Issuing Judgment After Confirmation of Appraisal Award Overturned

    Documenting Contract Changes in Construction

    Mediating is Eye Opening

    Not So Fast, My Friend: Pacing and Concurrent Delay

    Be Careful with “Green” Construction

    Supreme Court Holds That Prevailing Wage Statute is Constitutional

    Texas “your work” exclusion

    Crossrail Audit Blames Busted Budget and Schedule on Mismanagement

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    Duuers: Better Proposals with Less Work

    Motion to Dismiss COVID Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    EPA Expands Energy Star, Adds Indoor airPLUS

    Three White and Williams Lawyers Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

    Defeating the Ten-Year Statute of Repose For Latent Construction Defects
    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

    Additional Insured Status Survives Summary Judgment Stage

    August 26, 2015 —
    The court determined that the insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in seeking a determination that a hotel was not the additional insured under its elevator repair company's policy. Aspen Spec. Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Indem. Inc., 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2413 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 7, 2015). Michael Patalano was an elevator repairman employed by Transel Elevator Inc. Transel had a contract to maintain the elevators at Alphonse Hotel. The contract required Transel to name Alphonse as an additional insured on Transel's CGL policy. Patalano was injured while working at the hotel. He sued Alphonse, alleging that while performing work for the hotel, the stairs he was on which he was descending collapsed, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. Alphonse tendered to Ironshore, Transel's CGL carrier. 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

    How Your Disgruntled Client Can Turn Into Your Very Own Car Crash! (and How to Avoid It) (Law Tips)

    January 21, 2019 —
    Over the summer, I was involved in a car crash. It was *not* my fault– heck, I wasn’t even driving but riding shotgun. But it wasn’t my husband’s fault either. A guy pulling out of a parking lot was watching the traffic coming up the road, but failed to see our car sitting in the same intersection waiting to turn into the same parking lot. He ran right into us. It may not look like much, but the panels were so damaged it cost almost $9k in damages, over a month of car rental fees, and a LOT of aggravation on our part. The guy who hit us was very nice, apologized, and was concerned if we were injured. His insurance company ultimately paid for all of the damage. However– it wasn’t he who suddenly got a new part time job– that was me. I had to spend lots of time with police, insurance representatives, auto body mechanics, rental car places, you name it. If you’ve ever been in an accident, you know the headache involved. In fact, I have had 2 other accidents over the years (again, neither of which were my fault– I think I’m just a beacon for bad drivers?). One of those accidents was a 4 car accident– a driver hit my car, pushing it into the car ahead, which went into the car ahead of that. In that accident, my car was actually totaled. Fun times! How is this relevant to your life as an architect or engineer? If you stay in the game (that is, the design field) long enough, chances are, you will, at some point, end up dealing with disgruntled clients. One of those clients may even file a lawsuit against you. Or, for that matter, you may end up getting sued by another party involved in your construction projects– one that you don’t even have a contract with. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Highest Building Levels in Six Years in Southeast Michigan

    December 11, 2013 —
    Macomb Township in southeast Michigan has had $122 million in new development in 2013, all of which helped the region reach its highest building levels since 2007. The wider area saw 398 permits issued for single-family homes in the last twelve months, fifty-two more than in the twelve months prior. “The improvement is economically driven,” said Michael Stoskofa, the CEO of the Home Builders Association of Southeast Michigan. As employment improves in the area, “more people are willing and able to purchase a home,” he said. Home inventory in the area is also at a record low. As a result, projects that were put on hold in 2008 are active again. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal Subcontractor Who Failed to Follow FAR Regulations Finds That “Fair” and “Just” are Not Synonymous

    April 22, 2019 —
    Inscribed over the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court are the words “Equal Justice Under Law.” It’s a reminder that judicial decisions should be just. That doesn’t necessarily mean fair. In Aspic Engineering and Construction Company v. ECC Centcom Constructors, LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Case No. 17-16510 (January 28, 2019), the 9th Circuit overturned an arbitration decision in favor of a local Afghani subcontractor seeking termination costs after it was terminated for convenience by a U.S.-based general contractor. This, despite the arbitrator’s finding that the subcontract was “clearly drafted to give every advantage to” the general contractor, that the local Afghani subcontractor’s “experience with government contracting [was] not nearly as extensive as that of” the general contractor, and “that the normal business practices and customs of subcontractors in Afghanistan were more ‘primitive’ than those of U.S. subcontractors experienced with U.S. Government work.” Aspic Engineering and Construction Local Afghani subcontractor Aspic Engineering and Construction Company was awarded two subcontracts by ECC Centcom Constructors the general contractor on two projects in Afghanistan overseen by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The first subcontract involved construction of various buildings in the Badghis province of Afghanistan . The second subcontract involved the construction various buildings Sheberghan province of Afghanistan . Both subcontracts included clauses from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which were incorporated by reference, and included flow-down provisions obligating Aspic to ECC in the same manner that ECC was obligated to the U.S. government. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”

    June 05, 2023 —
    A general contractor seeking to litigate with its subcontractor concerning a construction project in Indiana found itself fighting in court against assertions by the sub that arbitration of the dispute was required. The GC was already in litigation in federal court with the project owner. The GC filed a third-party demand against the sub, which was met with a motion to stay and to compel arbitration. At the crux of the sub’s argument was this clause in its subcontract: “Subcontractor agrees that the dispute resolution provisions of the Prime Contract between [GC] and Owner, if any, are incorporated by reference as part of this Subcontract so as to be binding as to disputes between Subcontractor and [GC] that involve, in whole or in part, questions of fact and/or law that are common to any dispute between [GC] and Owner or others similarly bound to such dispute resolution procedures... ." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    March 28, 2012 —

    The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in the case La Tierra de Simmons Familia Ltd. V. Main Event Entertainment, LP. The trial court had found for Main Event. On appeal, the court threw out some of the grounds on which the trial court had reached its decision.

    The case involved two commercial lots in northwest Austin, Texas. The uphill tract (Phase III of the Anderson Arbor development) diverts its runoff onto the lower tract (the “Ballard tract”). The owners of the Ballard tract claim that “the drainage system was designed or constructed in a manner that has damaged and continues to damage the Ballard tract.”

    Both tracts have undergone changes of ownership since the construction of the drainage system in 2004. At the time the drainage system was constructed, the parcel was owned by Sears Roebuck and Co. Sears later sold the property. Main Event Entertainment is the current tenant. Likewise, the Ballard tract was previously owned by the Ballard Estate which sold the property to La Tierra on an “as is” basis in 2007.

    After La Tierra bought the Ballard tract, La Tierra’s engineer “witnessed and videotaped what he described as ‘flooding’ on the Ballard tract caused by storm water discharge from the Anderson Arbor drainage system during a rainfall event.” La Tierra determined that an adequate drainage system would cost about $204,000. Development plans were put on hold.

    La Tierra sued Main Event and various other parties associated with the uphill tract, seeking “actual damages for (1) decrease and loss in rental income due to delay in obtaining the development permit, (2) interest on carrying costs during that time period, (3) the cost to build a water conveyance system on the Ballard tract, (4) engineering fees incurred to redesign the water conveyance system, (5) unspecified out-of-pocket real estate expenses, and (6) property devaluation occasioned by the need to construct an expensive water conveyance system.” The trial court never reached these claims, ruling instead that La Tierra lacked standing, that its claims were barred under the statute of limitations, and that there was no evidence of damage.

    La Tierra appealed, arguing that “(1) the summary-judgment evidence does not conclusively establish that property damage claims accrued or were discovered prior to September 11, 2007, which is within the limitations period and was after La Tierra purchased the property; (2) even if the property was damaged before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract, standing exists based on the assignments of interest from the Ballard Estate heirs, and the discovery rule tolls limitations until the injury was discovered on September 11, 2007; (3) limitations does not bar La Tierra's request for injunctive relief; (4) La Tierra's water code claim against Main Event and M.E.E.P. is viable based on their control over the drainage system, which makes them necessary and indispensable parties for injunctive relief; (5) La Tierra presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact issue on damages, causation, and other essential elements of its causes of action; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the defendants' objections to La Tierra's summary-judgment evidence.”

    The appeals court concluded that La Tierra’s second claim was irrelevant to standing, as La Tierra “obtained assignments from the Ballard Estate heirs ? nearly one year after the lawsuit was initially filed.” Nor did the court accept their first point. The water system had been operating unaltered since January, 2004, with monthly maintenance and inspection to maintain its designed operation. Further, a feasibility report La Tierra received stated that “over sixteen acres drain into those ponds, and thus onto this site.” The court noted that “the underlying facts giving rise to a cause of action were known before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract.”

    The court concluded that the drainage issue is a permanent injury, but that it “accrued before La Tierra acquired an ownership interest in the property.” As La Tierra has standing, the appeals court ruled that it was improper for the trial court to rule on the issues. The appeals court dismissed the questions of whether the case was barred under the statute of limitation and also the question of whether or not La Tierra had damages.

    As the issue of standing would not allow La Tierra to bring the suit, the appeals court found for the defendants, dismissing the case for this single reason, and otherwise affirming the ruling of the lower court.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Hollywood Legend Betty Grable’s Former Home for Sale

    June 30, 2014 —
    When it comes to Old Hollywood stars, Betty Grable was “the girl with the million-dollar legs.” She also lived in a million-dollar home just four blocks from the Hotel Bel-Air. Located at 1280 Stone Canyon Rd, the house is currently on the market for $13.295 million. “It’s a classic, Hollywood estate,” said listing agent Bjorn Farrugia of Hilton & Hyland. “It’s very picturesque — set back on one of the best streets in Bel-Air.” Grable moved in after the home was built in 1937, the same year she married actor Jackie Coogan (aka “Uncle Fester” in the 1960s sitcom The Addams Family). Soon after, in 1939, the couple appeared in “Million Dollar Legs,” a movie giving rise to the actress’ nickname. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Catherine Sherman – Bloomberg

    Fifth Circuit Confirms: Insurer Must Defend Despite Your Work/Your Product Exclusion

    February 14, 2022 —
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently confirmed that liability insurers have a duty to defend their insureds in construction defect cases when the underlying complaint alleges damage to property beyond the product and work of the insured – even if the complaint merely implies that the insured seeks such damage, without explicitly alleging so. Siplast, Incorporated v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, No. 20-11076, 2022 WL 99303 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022). The Archdiocese of New York replaced the roof over Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx, using a roofing membrane manufactured by Siplast, Inc. (“Siplast”). After a rainstorm a few years later, school officials reported water damage to the ceiling tiles throughout the school, and repair attempts only made the leaking worse. Siplast disputed that the leaks were its fault and refused to replace the roof, so the Archdiocese sued. Reprinted courtesy of Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of