BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield 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


    How SmartThings Wants to Automate Your Home

    Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases

    COVID-19 Response: Essential Business Operations: a High-Stakes Question Under Proliferating “Stay at Home” Orders

    Newmeyer Dillion Named One of "The Best Places To Work In Orange County" by Orange County Business Journal

    ASCE Statement on Hurricane Milton and Environmental Threats

    New York vs. Miami: The $50 Million Penthouse Battle From Zaha Hadid

    Harmon Tower Opponents to Try Mediation

    Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Suit Against Broker for Securing Inadequate Coverage Dismissed on Statute of Limitations Grounds

    City of Sacramento Approves Kings NBA Financing Plan

    Colorado House Bill 1279 Stalls over 120-day Unit Owner Election Period

    New York Team Secures Appellate Win on Behalf of National Home Improvement Chain

    Drafting a Contractual Arbitration Provision

    Idaho Business Review Names VF Law Attorney Brittaney Bones Women of the Year Honoree

    Fatal Boston Garage Demolition Leaves Long Road to Recovery

    Couple Claims Poor Installation of Home Caused Defects

    San Francisco OKs Revamped Settling Millennium Tower Fix

    Bad News for Buyers: U.S. Mortgage Rates Hit Highest Since 2014

    Toll Brothers Named #1 Home Builder on Fortune Magazine's 2023 World's Most Admired Companies® List

    Las Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice Department

    Texas Supreme Court Holds Stipulated Extrinsic Evidence May Be Considered in Determining Duty to Defend

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    Hilary Soaks California With Flooding Rain and Snarls Flights

    Wall Enclosing Georgia Neighborhood Built for Walking Dead TV Show

    Brenda Radmacher to Speak at Construction Super Conference 2024

    Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate

    Court of Appeals Discusses Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Public Works Contracting

    Orange County Team Obtains Unanimous Defense Verdict in Case Involving Failed Real Estate Transaction

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    No Coverage Under Installation Policy When Read Together with Insurance Application

    Turning Back the Clock: DOL Proposes Previous Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Definition

    Utilities’ Extreme Plan to Stop Wildfires: Shut Off the Power

    Power Point Presentation on Nautilus v. Lexington Case

    When OSHA Cites You

    Sewage Flowing in London’s River Thames Draws Green Bond Demand

    Plans Go High Tech

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, Texas

    Proximity Trace Used to Monitor, Maintain Social Distancing on $1.9-Billion KCI Airport Project

    School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    Steps to Curb Construction Defect Actions for Homebuilders

    Expert Can be Questioned on a Construction Standard, Even if Not Relied Upon

    An Uncharted Frontier: Nevada First State to Prohibit Defense-Within-Limits Provisions

    Trump Order Waives Project Environment Rules to Push COVID-19 Recovery

    California Contractor Spills Coffee on Himself by Failing to Stay Mechanics Lien Action While Pursuing Arbitration

    AB 685 and COVID-19 Workplace Exposure: New California Notice and Reporting Requirements of COVID Exposure Starting January 1, 2021

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

    Don’t Believe Everything You Hear: Liability of Asbestos Pipe Manufacturer Upheld Despite Exculpatory Testimony of Plaintiff

    2019’s Biggest Labor and Employment Moves Affecting Construction

    Florida Insurance Legislation Alert - Part I
    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

    US Court Questions 102-Mile Transmission Project Over River Crossing

    February 07, 2022 —
    A federal judge will decide in February whether to stop construction of a $492-million Iowa-to-Wisconsin transmission line, after issuing an opinion in mid-January “declaring” that federal rules preclude the 102-mile Cardinal-Hickory Creek project from crossing the 261-mile Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge by right-of-way or land transfer. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2022 “Atlanta 500” List

    February 14, 2022 —
    Atlanta, Ga. (February 11, 2022) - Atlanta Partner Candis R. Jones has been named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2022 “Atlanta 500” list of the most powerful business leaders in Atlanta. This is the second year in a row she has received this recognition. To compile this list, the publication reviewed nominations from the public and consulted experts across various sectors. The magazine’s editors and writers considered not only the status of the nominees within their respective organizations, but also whether the nominees were visionary by, for example, leading programs for their communities or creating opportunities for employees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Candis Jones, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Jones may be contacted at Candis.Jones@lewisbrisbois.com

    Mark Van Wonterghem To Serve as Senior Forensic Consultant in the Sacramento Offices of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.

    March 01, 2012 —

    Sacramento, CA — Bert L. Howe and Associates, Inc., is pleased to announce that Mark Van Wonterghem - General Contractor, has joined the firm as Senior Forensic Consultant. Mark will be responsible for leading the firm’s expansion in the newly formed Sacramento headquarters.

    His focus will continue to be working with construction practice groups and claims professionals in the Sacramento and Bay Area markets. He will utilize the resources of the Construction Experts Group at Bert L. Howe & Associates in furthering the litigation support needs attendant to the firm’s Northern California clientele.

    Mr. Van Wonterghem possesses extensive consulting and testimony experience. Through 32 years of experience in the construction industry he leverages extensive practical experience with multiple trades including concrete foundations, walls and flatwork, structural wood and steel framing, finish carpentry, drywall, lath & plaster/stucco, window & door installations, deck coating systems, metal and membrane flashings and above/below grade waterproofing. This trade experience encompasses both the commercial and residential construction sectors and has been vital in his ability to provide concise explanation of construction industry standards, as well as trade-specific standards of care.

    Mr. Van Wonterghem has broad experience with all types of building construction ranging from concrete and steel commercial construction to high-end custom residential construction.

    In connection with the Construction Experts Group at BHA, Mr. Van Wonterghem provides construction consulting and litigation support services to a wide variety of recognized construction claims professionals, owners, and publicly traded builders.

    The firm’s Sacramento offices are located at the Gateway Oaks III office complex, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 435, Sacramento, CA 95833. Mr. Van Wonterghem can be reached via e mail at mvanwonterghem@berthowe.com or at (800) 783-1822.

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

    Rainwater Collecting on Rooftop is not Subject to Policy's Flood Sublimits

    October 15, 2024 —
    Responding to a certified question from the First Circuit, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts determined that rainwater collecting on the insureds' rooftop and causing interior damage was not "flood" as defined in the policy and subject to sublimits. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Medical Properties Trust, Inc., 2024 Mass. LEXIS ___ (Mass. July 23, 2024). A severe thunderstorm caused heavy rain and strong winds which damaged a hospital. The hospital was owned by Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (MPT) and leased to Steward Health Care System LLC (Steward). Ground water accumulated and flooded the basement. Rainwater also accumulated on the hospital's parapet roofs and on the second-story courtyard, and eventually seeped through the parapet roofs and courtyard to the hospital's upper floors, causing damage to the building and property within. 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

    The Simple Reason Millennials Aren't Moving Out Of Their Parents' Homes: They're Crushed By Debt

    February 26, 2015 —
    Millennials are not budging from their parents' basements, even though the job market is on the mend. One really big reason? Student loans. Last year, the rate of 25- to 34-year-olds living at home rose to 17.7 percent among men and 11.7 percent for women, Census data showed last week. That is a record high for both genders. Rising co-residence rates are correlated more closely with student debt than with factors like economic conditions and the housing market, according to a staff report in November from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The regional bank wrote about the trend today in its blog called "Liberty Street Economics." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nina Glinski, Bloomberg

    Courts Generally Favor the Enforcement of Arbitration Provisions

    May 10, 2021 —
    In recent posts (here and here) I have discussed arbitration provisions and cases dealing with the enforceability of arbitration provisions. The case of Lemos v. Sessa, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D701a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) deals with two noteworthy principles when it comes to arbitration that warrant another post about arbitration provisions. First, courts will and should try to resolve any ambiguity in arbitration provisions in favor of arbitration. Second, when there is an offending arbitration provision or one that includes language that violates public policy, the trial court “should sever the offending provisions from the arbitration clause so long as such severance does not undermine the parties’ intent.” Lemos, supra. This principle is reinforced when the arbitration provision is in an agreement that contains a severability provision. 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

    Scope of Alaska’s Dump Lien Statute Substantially Reduced For Natural Gas Contractors

    March 16, 2020 —
    In All American Oilfield, LLC v. Cook Inlet Energy, LLC,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska clarified and substantially reduced a natural gas contractor’s ability to secure a preferred lien for its contribution to a natural gas well. Alaska’s dump lien statute (AS § 34.35.140) authorizes a laborer to claim a lien for the amount owed for their labor in the production of a “dump or mass” of “extracted, hoisted and raised” matter from a mine. While Alaska’s dump lien statute is one of three Alaskan statutes allowing laborers to attach liens to mines, mining equipment or minerals,[2] the dump lien statute is unique because it is prior and preferred over other liens, increasing the laborer’s chance of being paid in a bankruptcy proceeding. Attaching a lien to a “dump or mass” of hard-rock minerals piled outside a mine or oil stored in a tank is relatively straightforward. However, natural gas is typically left in its natural reservoir until removed by a pipeline that carries the gas to a location far from the mine. Natural gas is not extracted and stored in a “dump or mass” like other minerals, and until August 2019, controversy existed over how—or if—the dump lien statute could be used by natural gas contractors. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Trevor Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Lane may be contacted at trevor.lane@acslawyers.com

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    November 18, 2011 —

    The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in the case of Dayton v. Ackerman, upholding the decision of the lower court, even as they found that the award was incorrectly computed. The Daytons purchased a house that had been designed and built by the Ackermans, who operated a construction business. The court noted that the warranty with the house promised that “for a period of 60 days, the following items will be free of defects in materials or workmanship: doors (including hardware); windows; electric switches; receptacles; and fixtures; caulking around exterior openings; pluming fixtures; and cabinet work.”

    Soon, the Daytons began to experience problems with the house. Many were addressed by the Ackermans, but the Daytons continued to have problems with the windows. Neither side could specify a firm date when the Ackermans were contacted by the Daytons about the window problems. The Ackermans maintained that more than two years passed before the Daytons complained about the windows. The lower court found the Daytons more credible in this.

    Initially, the Daytons included the window manufacturer in their suit, but after preliminary investigations, the Daytons dropped Martin Doors from their suit. Martin Doors concluded that the windows were improperly installed, many of them “jammed into openings that were too small for them.”

    After the Daytons dismissed Martin Doors, the Ackermans sought to file a third party complaint against them. This was denied by the court, as too much time had elapsed. The Ackermans also noted that not all of the window installations were defective, however, the courts found that the Daytons ought not to have mismatched windows.

    Unfortunately for the Daytons, the window repair was done incorrectly and the windows were now too small for the openings. The firm that did the repair discounted the windows and Daytons concealed the problem with plantation shutters, totalling $400 less than the original lowest estimate. However, the appeals court noted that it was here that the trial court made their computation error. Correcting this, the appeals court assessed the Ackermans $12,016.20 instead of $13,016.20.

    Finally, the Ackerman’s expert was excluded as he had changed his testimony between deposition and trial. The trial reviewed the expert’s testimony and had it been admissible, it would not have changed the ruling.

    Read the court’s decision…

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