BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction experts
    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


    The 2017 ASCDC and CDCMA Construction Defect Seminar and Holiday Reception

    California Supreme Court Rules Developers can be Required to Include Affordable Housing

    Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance

    Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier

    Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

    Waive Not, Want Not: Waivers and Releases on California Construction Projects

    Home Buyers will Pay More for Solar

    Judge Who Oversees Mass. Asbestos Docket Takes New Role As Chief Justice of Superior Court

    Steel-Fiber Concrete Link Beams Perform Well in Tests

    Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

    Chicago Criticized for Not Maintaining Elevator Inspections

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/17/23) – A Flop in Flipping, Plastic Microbes and Psychological Hard Hats

    For Whom Additional Insured Coverage Applies in New York

    Assessments Underway After Hurricane Milton Rips Off Stadium Roof, Snaps Crane Boom in Florida

    Umbrella Policy Must Drop Down to Assist with Defense

    Netherlands’ Developer Presents Modular Homes for Young Professionals

    New Opportunities for “Small” Construction Contractors as SBA Adjusts Its Size Standards Again Due to Unprecedented Inflation

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/06/21)

    No Coverage for Counterclaim Arising from Insured's Faulty Workmanship

    Wisconsin Court of Appeals Re-affirms American Girl To Find Coverage for Damage Caused by Subcontractors

    A Primer on Insurance for Construction Projects

    Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case

    Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says

    New ConsensusDocs 242 Design Professional Change Order Form Helps Facilitate Compensation for Changes in Design Services

    Mind The Appeal Or: A Lesson From Auto-Owners Insurance Co. V. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. On Timing Insurance Bad Faith And Declaratory Judgment Insurance Claims Following A Nunn-Agreement

    Design-Assist Collaboration/Follow-up Post

    WSDOT Seeks Retraction of Waiver Excluding Non-Minority Woman-Owned Businesses from Participation Goals

    California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions

    Four Key Steps for a Successful Construction Audit Process

    The Ever-Growing Thicket Of California Civil Code Section 2782

    Caltrans to Speak before California Senate regarding Bay Bridge Expansion

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

    Louisiana Court Applies Manifestation Trigger to Affirm Denial of Coverage

    Subcontractors on Washington Public Projects can now get their Retainage Money Sooner

    Architects Should Not Make Initial Decisions on Construction Disputes

    Federal Judge Vacates CDC Eviction Moratorium Nationwide

    New Jersey Imposes New Apprenticeship Training Requirements

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    The Impact of Sopris Lodging v. Schofield Excavation on Timeliness of Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    SkenarioLabs Uses AI for Property Benchmarking

    House Passes $25B Water Resources Development Bill

    Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum

    Corps Releases Final Report on $29B Texas Gulf Coast Hurricane Defense Plan

    Supplement to New California Construction Laws for 2019

    Wall Enclosing Georgia Neighborhood Built for Walking Dead TV Show

    Chambers USA 2021 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Cliffhanger: $451M Upgrade for Treacherous Stretch of Highway 1 in British Columbia

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

    Panthers Withdraw City, County Deal Over Abandoned Facility

    Obtaining Temporary Injunction to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement
    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. Drawing 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

    EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater

    May 27, 2019 —
    On Tuesday, April 23, 2019, in a development of interest to practically anyone who operates a plant or business, EPA published its Interpretive Statement in the Federal Register. (See 84 FR 16810 (April 23, 2019).) After considering the thousands of comments it received in response to a February 20, 2018, Federal Register notice, EPA has concluded that “the Clean Water Act (CWA) is best read as excluding all releases of pollutants from a point source to groundwater from a point source from NPDES program coverage, regardless of a hydrological connection between the groundwater and jurisdictional surface water.” Acknowledging that its past public statements have not been especially consistent or unambiguous on this important matter, EPA states that this interpretation “is the best, if not the only reading of the CWA, is more consistent with Congress’ intent than other interpretations of the Act, and best addresses the question of NPDES permit program applicability for pollutant releases to groundwater within the authority of the CWA.” Indeed, the absence of “a dedicated statement on the best reading of the CWA has generated confusion in the courts, and uncertainly for EPA regional offices and states implementing the NPDES program, regulated entities, and the public.” The recent and contrary interpretations of this issue by the Ninth Circuit (Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, 886 F.3d 737) and the Fourth Circuit (Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP, 887 F.3d 637) will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which will now have the benefit of the agency’s official position. In addition, EPA discloses that it will be soliciting additional public “input” on how it can best provide the regulated community with “further clarity and regulatory certainly”; these comments will be due within 45 days (June 7, 2019). 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

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims

    January 22, 2014 —
    Issues of fact surrounding the applicability of various exclusions prevented the insurer from securing summary judgment on claims for water damage. Babai v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175336 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 13, 2013). The insured noticed water damage to various areas of her home during remodeling. Allstate denied the claim because the loss was "not sudden and accidental," but rather progressive. Allstate cited the policy provision for "wear and tear, aging, . . . deterioration," etc., to exclude coverage. Plaintiff filed suit and Allstate moved for summary judgment. First, Allstate argued that construction defects were excluded from coverage based upon the exclusion for "latent defects." "Latent defects" were those that would not be discovered by a reasonable person. There was no evidence that the water damage was readily discoverable, so Allstate's argument failed. 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 Will Today’s Pandemic Impact Tomorrow’s Construction Contracts?

    October 26, 2020 —
    The emergence of COVID-19 has created a new set of challenges in the already complex world of negotiating construction contracts. In the pre-COVID-19 era, general contractors, construction managers and those negotiating on their behalf, needed to balance a variety of fairly well-established legal risks and exposures and commercial realities with the need to maintain a positive relationship with their counterparty. While many are rightfully concerned with addressing the impacts of COVID-19 to their on-going projects, those negotiating new contracts now are undoubtedly cognizant that they are negotiating in the midst of an unpredictable future that is tipping the historical negotiating balance. The following presents some crucial areas to focus on when negotiating and drafting your contracts in this new era. Contract Terms Through the COVID-19 Lens Contractors should examine proposed new contracts carefully to identify rights that afford COVID-19 protections and identify contractual obligations that create COVID-19 commercial risks. Specific attention should be paid to those sections relating to force majeure/excusable delay, emergencies, changes (including changes in law), contingency, suspension and termination, site investigation as well as all representations and warranties. The paramount concern in examining these provisions is to ensure that they not only entitle the contractor to relief for those unknown events, emergencies and changes, but that they also contain sufficient entitlement for the contractor to obtain both time extensions and financial compensation for unknown impacts of a known event – the COVID-19 pandemic. Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.and Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Property Insurance Exclusion for Constant or Repeated Leakage of Water

    March 14, 2018 —
    A property insurance policy, no different than any insurance policy, contains exclusions for events that are NOT covered under the terms of the policy. One such common exclusion in a property insurance policy is an exclusion for damages caused by "constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water…over a period of 14 or more days." The application of this exclusion was discussed in the recent opinion of Hicks v. American Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D446a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). In this case, while the insured was out of town, the water line to his refrigerator started to leak. When the insured return home over a month later, the supply line was discharging almost a thousand gallons of water per day. The insured submitted a property insurance claim. The property insurer engaged a consultant that opined (likely, correctly) that the water line had been leaking for at least five weeks. Based on the above-mentioned exclusion, i.e., that water had been constantly leaking for over a period of 14 days, the insurer denied coverage. This denial led to the inevitable coverage dispute. 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

    Standard of Care

    December 16, 2019 —
    One of the key concepts at the heart of Board complaints and civil claims against a design professional is whether or not that design professional complied with the applicable standard of care. In order to prevail on such a claim, the claimant must establish (typically with the aid of expert testimony) that the design professional deviated from the standard of care. On the other side of the coin, to defend a design professional against a professional malpractice claim, defense counsel attempts to establish that – contrary to the claimant’s allegations – the design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. Obviously, it becomes very important in such a claim situation to determine what the standard of care is that applies to the conduct of the defendant design professional. Often, this is easier said than done. There is no dictionary definition or handy guidebook that identifies the precise standard of care that applies in any given situation. The “standard of care” is a concept and, as such, is flexible and open to interpretation. Traditionally, the standard of care is expressed as being that level of service or competence generally employed by average or prudent practitioners under the same or similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locale. In other words, to meet the standard of care a design professional must generally follow the pack; he or she need not be perfect, exemplary, outstanding, or even superior – it is sufficient merely for the designer to do that which a reasonably prudent practitioner would do under similar circumstances. The negative or reverse definition also applies, to meet the standard of care, a practitioner must refrain from doing what a reasonably prudent practitioner would have refrained from doing. Although we have this ready definition of the standard of care, in any given dispute it is practically inevitable that the parties will have markedly different opinions as to: (1) what the standard of care required of the designer; and (2) whether the defendant design professional complied with that requirement. The claimant bringing a claim against a design professional typically will be able to find an expert reasonably qualified (at least on paper) who will offer an opinion that the defendant failed to comply with the standard of care. It is just as likely that the counsel for the defendant design professional will be able to find his or her own expert who will counter the opinion of the claimant’s expert and maintain that the defendant design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. What’s a jury to think? The concept of standard of care is intertwined with the legal concept of negligence. In the vast majority of law suits against design professionals, a claimant (known as the plaintiff) will assert a claim for negligence against the design professional now known as the defendant.1 As every first year law student learns while studying the field of “Torts,” negligence has four subparts. In order for a defendant to be found negligent, the claimant must establish four elements: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages. In other words, to establish a claim against a defendant design professional, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care but breached that duty and, as a result, caused the plaintiff to suffer damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jay Gregory, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Gregory may be contacted at jgregory@grsm.com

    CFTC Establishes Climate-Risk Unit, Echoing Other Biden Administration Agency Themes

    April 12, 2021 —
    On March 17, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) joined other federal agencies led by Biden Administration appointees in ramping up consideration of climate-related risks in matters under the Commission’s jurisdiction. Stressing the need for a climate-resilient financial system, the CFTC’s new Climate-Risk Unit (CRU) will focus on “the role of derivatives in understanding, pricing, and addressing climate-related risk and transitioning to a low-carbon economy.” Formation of the CRU will accelerate the CFTC’s “engagement in support of industry-led and market-driven processes in the climate – and the larger ESG – space critical to ensuring that new products and markets fairly facilitate hedging, price discovery, market transparency, and capital allocation.” As with similar programs launched by the Securities and Exchange Commission (see our previous alert from March 19), businesses affected by the CFTC’s new initiative should consider active engagement to ensure informed and appropriate approaches are included in any new regulations, policies, or frameworks governing climate-related issues. Reprinted courtesy of Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois and Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    August 17, 2011 —

    Work resumed after nearly three years on an office tower in Santa Clara, according to the San Jose Mercury News. Work had stalled on the building due to the economy, but now the developer is planning a second five-story building on the site. Other dormant projects in the area are also getting restarted. Santa Clara County saw the addition of 1,800 construction jobs in June.

    A spokesperson for the Operating Engineers Local 3 in Alameda told the paper, “two years ago we had five thousand folks on the out-of-work list. It’s now down to about 1,700.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Notes from the Nordic Smart Building Convention

    June 29, 2017 —
    The first Nordic Smart Building Convention took place in Helsinki on June 14 and 15, 2017. It was an inspiring event with great keynotes, tech talks, and an exhibition of smart building products and services. The event was organized by HUB13, a leading co-working space provider in Finland. I had met with the producer of the convention, Sjoerd Postema, when he was planning the event. He asked for my ideas on possible topics and presenters. Later, he invited me to host a workshop and a roundtable at the convention. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi