BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractor
    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


    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Components of an Effective Provision

    Insurer Must Defend Contractor Against Claims of Faulty Workmanship

    Monumental Museum Makeover Comes In For Landing

    Public-Private Partnerships: When Will Reality Meet the Promise?

    AAA Revises Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

    Ten Years After Colorado’s Adverse Possession Amendment: a brief look backwards and forwards

    Tips for Drafting Construction Contracts

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

    Measure of Damages in Negligent Procurement of Surety Bonds / Insurance

    Illinois Court Addresses Coverage Owed For Subcontractor’s Defective Work

    Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia

    Narrow Promissory Estoppel Exception to Create Insurance Coverage

    Congress Considers Pandemic Risk Insurance Act to Address COVID-19 Business Interruptions Losses

    Florida Supreme Court: Notice of Right to Repair is a CGL “Suit,” SDV Amicus Brief Supports Decision

    A WARNing for Companies

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

    Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix

    Protecting Expert Opinions: Lessons Regarding Attorney-Client Privilege and Expert Retention in Construction Litigation

    Haight’s Stevie Baris Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Northern California Rising Stars

    Ahlers & Cressman’s Top 10 Construction Industry Contract Provisions

    New York Appellate Court Restores Insurer’s Right to Seek Pro Rata Allocation of Settlements Between Insured and Uninsured Periods

    Can’t Get a Written Change Order? Document, Document, Document

    Lessee Deemed Statutory Employer, Immune from Tort Liability by Pennsylvania Court

    NTSB Pittsburgh Bridge Probe Update Sheds Light on Collapse Sequence

    Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly

    Climate Change a Factor in 'Unprecedented' South Asia Floods

    Industry Groups Decry Jan. 6 Riot; DOT Chief Chao Steps Down in Protest

    Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s “Right to Repair Statutes”

    Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment on Conversion Claim Against Insurer

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    Illinois Earns C- on its 2022 Infrastructure Report Card while Making Strides on Roads and Transit

    Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted

    Industry News: New Partner at Burdman Law Group

    Insurance Alert: Insurer Delay Extends Time to Repair or Replace Damaged Property

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes Six Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    Women in Construction Aren’t Silent Anymore. They Are Using TikTok to Battle Discrimination

    Zetlin & De Chiara Ranked in the Top Tier for Construction Law by Legal 500 USA

    OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit

    Five Issues to Consider in Government Contracting (Or Any Contracting!)

    OSHA Joins the EEOC in Analyzing Unsafe Construction Environments

    Trio of White and Williams Attorneys Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

    Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

    Progress, Property, and Privacy: Discussing Human-Led Infrastructure with Jeff Schumacher

    Partner Jason Taylor and Senior Associate Danielle Kegley Successful in Appeal of Summary Disposition on Priority of Coverage Dispute in the Michigan Court of Appeals

    Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    Southern California Super Lawyers Recognizes Four Snell & Wilmer Attorneys As Rising Stars

    Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?
    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

    2019 Legislative Session

    June 03, 2019 —
    Two bills under consideration as the end of the session nears contain significant changes to Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”). The bills broaden remedies, make more conduct a breach of the CCPA, and include purely private transactions in the type of conduct that falls within the scope of the CCPA. The bills are House Bill 19-1289 (“House Bill”) and Senate Bill 19-237 (“Senate Bill”). As of April 29, 2019, the House Bill has passed the House. The Senate Bill has not progressed past introduction. It is unclear if both houses of the legislature will have an opportunity to vote on either or both bills before the session ends. The House Bill makes a person liable for CCPA violations based on conduct engaged in “recklessly,” not just knowing conduct. No definition of the term “recklessly” is provided in the House Bill, but Colorado’s attorney general testified “recklessly” “means a company or person acted with reckless disregard for the truth.” (Page 2). No explanation was given of what the word “reckless” in the definition of “recklessly” meant in this context. Another provision of the House Bill adds a “catch all” prohibition that labels as a deceptive trade practice knowingly or recklessly engaging in any unfair, unconscionable, deceptive, deliberately misleading, false or fraudulent act or practice. There is no indication how a person could “recklessly” engage in “deliberately misleading” acts or practices. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steve Heisdorffer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. Heisdorffer may be contacted at heisdorffer@hhmrlaw.com

    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

    August 17, 2011 —

    The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Miller v. Lankow that Mr. Miller was within his rights to remediate his home, even though doing so destroyed the evidence of water intrusion.

    Linda Lankow built a home in 1992. In 2001 or 2002, Lankow discovered a stucco problem at the garage which she attributed to moisture intrusion. She asked the original contractor to fix the wall. In 2003, Lankow attempted to sell her home, but the home inspection revealed fungal growth in the basement. Lankow made further repairs, including alterations to the landscaping.

    In 2004, Lankow put her house on the market once again and entered into an agreement with David Miller. Miller declined to have an independent inspection, as the home had been repaired by professional contractors.

    In 2005, Miller put the house on the market. A prospective buyer requested a moisture inspection. The inspection firm, Private Eye, Inc. found “significant moisture intrusion problems.”

    Miller hired an attorney who sent letters to the contractors and to Lankow and her husband. Lankow’s husband, Jim Betz, an attorney, represented his wife and sent a letter to Miller’s attorney that Miller had declined an opportunity to inspect the home.

    In 2007, Miller’s new attorney sent letters to all parties that Miller had decided to begin remediation work on the house. All stucco was removed. Miller then filed a lawsuit against the prior owners, the builders, and the realtors.

    Two of the contractors and the prior owners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller had spoliated evidence by removing the stucco. They requested that Miller’s expert reports be excluded. The district court found for the defendants and imposed sanctions on Miller.

    The Minnesota Supreme court found that “a custodial party’s duty to preserve evidence is not boundless,” stating that “it may be particularly import to allow remediation in cases such as the one before us.” Their reasoning was that “remediation of the moisture intrusion problem in the home may be necessary, even essential, to address immediate health concerns.”

    Given that Miller needed to remediate the problem in order to continue living there, and that he had given the other parties a “full and fair opportunity to inspect,” the court found that he was within his rights. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it to them for review.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    You Have Choices (Litigation Versus Mediation)

    December 14, 2020 —
    As I sit here thinking about an impending trial in the Goochland County General District Court, it hit me that I also serve as a mediator in that court from time to time. Coincidentally, I will be “wearing both hats” (litigator and mediator) this week on back to back days. It will be interesting to have to switch roles so quickly on back to back days. While I don’t have the results of this thought experiment as I sit here typing this post, the timeline does bring into focus the two possible avenues to resolve a dispute. Neither is perfect and either works in the proper situation. Both lend a final “result” and closure to the dispute, they just each do so in a different manner and with a different role for me, the construction attorney/construction mediator. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    U.K. Construction Growth Unexpectedly Accelerated in January

    February 05, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- U.K. construction growth unexpectedly accelerated last month as housing strengthened and civil engineering bounced back from a contraction. Markit Economics said its Purchasing Managers’ Index rose to 59.1 from 57.6 in December. A reading above 50 indicates expansion. Economists forecast the gauge would fall to 57, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Beardsworth, Bloomberg
    Mr. Beardsworth may be contacted at tbeardsworth@bloomberg.net

    Hawaii Court Looks at Changes to Construction Defect Coverage after Changes in Law

    November 06, 2013 —
    A construction defect case lead at the U.S. District Court for Hawaii involved the insurer’s changed views on what was covered based on court decisions that came after the policy was written. John R. Casciano and Jessica L. Urban of Steptoe & Johnson LLP discuss the case on their firm’s website. They note that in Illinois National Insurance Company v. Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., Nordic built a retail building which soon afterwards had water leaks and property damage, due to alleged defects in the roof construction. Nordic had purchased comprehensive general liability and umbrella polices, with coverage that included property damage. Mr. Casciano and Ms. Urban note that “at the time of contracting, the Ninth Circuit had predicted that, ‘if the Hawaii Supreme Court examined the matter, it would rule that, for purposes of insurance coverage, construction defects were “not occurrences.”’” After the policy was written, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals did rule that “construction defect claims do not constitute an ‘occurrence’ under a CGL policy.” On the basis of this, Illinois National determined that they had no duty to defend or indemnify their client. Nordic made a claim of bad faith, but the court determined that “an insurer that denies coverage based on an open question of law does not act in bad faith, an insurer that actually relies on governing law, even if the insurer only belatedly learns of the law, cannot be said to thereby act in bad faith.” However, the court denied a summary judgment of Nordic’s claim of negligent misrepresentation, determining that there was “a question of fact as to whether the Policies covered [or were represented as covering] only damage to third parties caused by subcontractors’ defective work.” Finally, the court found that “a reasonable jury could infer that, at the time the Polices were issued, the insurers meant to cover claims arising out of the defective work” of Nordic’s subcontractors. They conclude that the Nordic decision “recognizes the varying consequences for coverage claims when post-contracting changes to the law may not coincide with the expectations of at least one of the parties at the time of contracting.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Google’s Biggest Moonshot Is Its Search for a Carbon-Free Future

    November 15, 2021 —
    Google Bay View, the company’s newest campus, consists of three squat buildings nestled near the San Francisco Bay shoreline a few miles east of its headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. The first things visitors notice are the roofs. They curve down gently from pinched peaks, like circus tents, sloping almost to the ground. Each roof is blanketed with overlapping solar panels that glisten with a brushed metal sheen on the edges. Google calls this design Dragonscale, and indeed it looks as if a mystical beast is curled up by the water in Silicon Valley. Google envisions its latest campus as the embodiment of a grander ambition to run its operations entirely free of carbon. The company plans to open Bay View in January to “a limited number” of employees, depending on the pandemic. Beneath the buildings, thousands of concrete pillars plunged into the ground will serve as a sort of geothermal battery, storing heat to warm the building and water supply without natural gas. The roof panels were constructed with a unique textured glass to prevent glare and with canopies that emit a soft, glowing light into the spacious atria inside. “We call this the Cathedral of Work,” says Asim Tahir, who oversees energy decisions in Google’s real estate division. He stands by the southern entrance in a hard hat, mask, and safety vest. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark Bergen, Bloomberg

    Municipal Ordinances Create Additional Opportunities for the Defense of Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    August 22, 2022 —
    Municipal ordinances may provide additional defenses for construction professionals where state law does not provide sufficient protection for Colorado’s builders. Colorado state law can be a minefield of potential liability for construction professionals. Even though the state legislature has stated that it must “recognize that Construction defect laws are an existing policy issue that many developers indicate adds to for-sale costs,” the legislature has remained hesitant to provide any meaningful protection from construction defect claims, resulting in almost unlimited exposure for Colorado’s construction professionals. Given this background of state laws that do not go far enough in protecting Colorado’s construction professionals, it may be fruitful to review municipal ordinances for new defenses and to temper state law developments applicable to construction defect claims. This is an area of law that is only just developing in Colorado. In fact, the ordinances discussed in this article were only passed in the last two years with many cities only adopting the present versions of the ordinances in 2021. The two model ordinances discussed below are potentially helpful in three ways. The first model ordinance gives construction professionals a right to repair defects in the multi-family construction and in the common interest community context. The second model ordinance is helpful in two ways. First, it establishes that homeowners associations may not unilaterally circumvent ADR protections included in the original declarations for such communities.[1] Second, the ordinance reduces the risk that strict liability will be imposed on a construction professional where a building code is violated. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ricky Nolen, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Nolen may be contacted at nolen@hhmrlaw.com

    Chinese Billionaire Developer Convicted in UN Bribery Case

    August 02, 2017 —
    A Chinese developer was convicted of charges he paid bribes to win backing for a United Nations conference center that he hoped to build in Macau. A jury in Manhattan on Thursday found the developer, billionaire Ng Lap Seng, guilty of all six charges he faced, including conspiracy, bribery and money laundering, in the biggest UN corruption scandal since the oil-for-food program in the early 2000s. Prosecutors claimed Ng funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to former UN General Assembly President John Ashe and other officials. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bob Van Voris, Bloomberg