BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic 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


    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Brokers' MSJ on Duties Owed In Construction Defect Case

    One More Statutory Tweak of Interest to VA Construction Pros

    Indemnity Payment to Insured Satisfies SIR

    Buffalo-Area Roof Collapses Threaten Lives, Businesses After Historic Snowfall

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Paid by Other Insurers

    New Jersey Law Firm Sued for Malpractice in Construction Defect Litigation

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

    Florida’s “Groundbreaking” Property Insurance Reform Law

    GSA Releases Updated Standards to Accelerate Federal Buildings Toward Zero Emissions

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/14/24) – Commercial Real Estate AI, Hotel Pipeline Growth, and Housing Market Improvements

    Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Electrical Subcontractor Sues over Termination

    Changes to Va. Code Section 43-13: Another Arrow in a Subcontractor’s Quiver

    White and Williams Earns National "Best Law Firm" Rankings from US News

    Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    Modification: Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor’s Employee

    Resurgent Housing Seen Cushioning U.S. From World Woes: Economy

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    WARN Act Exceptions in Response to COVID-19

    Asbestos Confirmed After New York City Steam Pipe Blast

    Park Avenue Is About to Get Something It Hasn’t Seen in 40 Years

    Guidance for Construction Leaders: How Is the Americans With Disabilities Act Applied During the Pandemic?

    Building Codes Evolve With High Wind Events

    Utah’s Highest Court Holds That Plaintiffs Must Properly Commence an Action to Rely on the Relation-Back Doctrine to Overcome the Statute of Repose

    Witt Named to 2017 Super Lawyers

    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

    Don’t Ignore the Dispute Resolution Provisions in Your Construction Contract

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

    Environmental Regulatory Provisions Embedded in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    U.S. Army Corps Announces Regulatory Program “Modernization” Plan

    New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

    Failing to Pay Prevailing Wages May Have Just Cost You More Than You Thought

    Law Firm Settles Two Construction Defect Suits for a Combined $4.7 Million

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    Power Point Presentation on Nautilus v. Lexington Case

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Rated as One of the Top 50 in a Survey of Construction Law Firms in the United States

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    Expert Excluded After Never Viewing Damaged Property

    Flint Water Crisis Prompts Call for More Federal Oversight

    The Impact of the IIJA and Amended Buy American Act on the Construction Industry

    NTSB Issues 'Urgent' Recommendations After Mass. Pipeline Explosions

    Excess-Escape Other Insurance Provision Unenforceable to Avoid Defense Cost Contribution Despite Placement in Policy’s Coverage Grant

    Engineering Report Finds More Investigation Needed of Balconies at New Jersey Condo

    Wall Street Is Buying Starter Homes to Quietly Become America’s Landlord

    EPA Fines Ivory Homes for Storm Water Pollution

    Definitions Matter in Illinois: Tenant Held Liable Only for Damage to Apartment Unit

    Hawaiian Electric Finalizes $2 Billion Maui Fire Settlement

    Firm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in Germany
    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

    What to Expect From the New Self-Retracting Devices Standard

    November 29, 2021 —
    One of the latest and most anticipated changes to occur this year relevant to fall protection is the publishing of the ANSI/ASSP Z359.14 2021 revision. Although the effective date isn’t until August 2022, this change is prompting the need for end user to prepare for using and understanding the new terminology performance requirements that will ultimately alter equipment selection criteria. The reason for its relevance is mostly due to its industry dependence and the increasing popularity of these types of devices. This voluntary consensus standard accounts for a vast portion of the fall protection market equipment and has been adopted as the industry standard, even though it is not the legal requirement. To assure a smooth transition, the immediate priority should be to understand the changes and what it means from a usability standpoint. A clear understanding of what changes devices need to comply will allow users to proceed with a comprehensive transition plan. What Are the Most Relevant Changes for the User? Classes The most significant changes are for Class A and B devices used to designate arrest distances and forces and the introduction of the Class 1 and 2 devices. These classes were known as designators for arresting falls at 24 inches and under with higher forces (Class A), and 54 inches and under with lower forces (Class B). Class 1 devices allow anchoring on overhead anchorages only and limitg freefall to no more than two feet. Reprinted courtesy of Andre Pelland, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Pelland may be contacted at andre.pelland@puresafetygroup.com

    How to Drop a New Building on Top of an Old One

    December 05, 2022 —
    Façadectomy. That’s the tongue-in-cheek term for a widely unloved architectural compromise that developers sometimes strike: saving the historic veneer of an existing building while demolishing and replacing its internal structure. Façade preservation is especially popular in Washington, DC, where a federal cap on the height of buildings and the strength of the preservationist cause locally makes the case for adapting existing structures, even at great expense. Façadism is rarer where cheaper tear-downs are possible, but over the last 40 years, this trend hit its stride on the East Coast. Prominent examples include the Spanish Embassy in DC and the Penn Mutual tower in Philadelphia. A new condo tower in Boston’s South End isn’t a typical façadectomy. The development at 100 Shawmut Avenue looks as if a glassy modern building had been plopped down on top of an old warehouse. According to Tom Schultz, associate for The Architectural Team, the Boston-area firm behind the project, the case for incorporating a six-story warehouse into a new residential project wasn’t merely aesthetic. The site and structure lent itself to building up. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

    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

    Orlando Commercial Construction Permits Double in Value

    October 01, 2013 —
    This August, permits were taken out for $102.3 million of commercial construction projects, a 95% increase over last August’s $52.4 million. Meanwhile, residential construction was up by a third, jumping from $205.6 million to $274.1 million. Overall that sent construction up by 46% in the Orlando area. The construction industry is a major one in the Orlando area and its recovery provides some hope for the region. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Federal District Court Follows Majority Rule on Insurance Policy Anti-Assignment Clauses

    March 20, 2023 —
    A recent decision by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut further confirms that Connecticut courts follow the majority rule that contractual anti-assignment clauses do not bar assignment of an insured’s claim after the loss occurred.1 The September 2022 decision in Am. Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co. v. 51 Roses Mill LLC arose out of a fire that destroyed a property under contract for sale. At the time of the fire, the property was owned by Bridge33 Capital LLC (“Bridge33”), insured by American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company (“American Guarantee”), and under contract for sale to 51 Roses Mill LLC (“51 Roses”). After the fire, Bridge33 assigned its insurance claim to 51 Roses. American Guarantee filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the assignment was invalid, or that, if it was valid, 51 Roses could only recover under the actual cash value, rather than the replacement cost value, of the lost property. 51 Roses brought counterclaims for breach of contract and bad faith and sought a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to replacement cost value under the policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. may be contacted at coverage@sdvlaw.com

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Duty to Defend Group Builders Case

    May 10, 2013 —
    On May 19, 2010, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals determined construction defect claims did not constitute an occurrence under a CGL policy.Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010) ("Group Builders I"). The appeal in Group Builders I, however, only addressed the duty to indemnify. The ICA has now issued a second decision (unpublished), holding that there is was duty to defend Group Builders on the construction defect claims under Hawaii law, based upon the policy language and the allegations in the underlying complaint. Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2013 Haw.App. LEXIS 207 (Haw. Ct. App. April 15, 2013). The underlying suit involved allegations by Hilton Hotels Corp. that Group Builders, a subcontractor working on an addition to the hotel, was responsible for mold found after completion of the project. Hilton alleged that the "design, construction, installation, and/or selection of the . . . building exterior wall finish . . . did not provide an adequate air and/or moisture barriers." The counts alleged against Group Builders included breach of contract and negligence. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Construction Employers Beware: New, Easier Union Representation Process

    October 17, 2023 —
    This week we are pleased to have a guest post by Robinson+Cole Labor Relations Group chair Natale V. DiNatale. The NLRB has reversed decades of precedent and made it far easier for unions to represent employees, including construction employers, without a secret ballot election. Initially, it is important to understand that this new standard applies to traditional “9(a)” relationships, not prehire agreements under 8(f) of the NLRA. While both types of relationships exist in the construction industry, 9(a) relationships require support from a majority of employees, while prehire agreements do not and tend to be project specific. The NLRB’s new standard (announced in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 130 (2023)) emphasizes union authorization cards that are gathered by union officials and union activists who often employ high-pressure tactics to obtain a signature. Employees often sign authorization cards without the benefit of understanding the significance of the cards. Even if they don’t want a union, they may sign because they feel pressured by a coworker, don’t want to offend a colleague, or want to avoid being bothered. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Natale V. DiNatale, Robinson+Cole
    Mr. DiNatale may be contacted at ndinatale@rc.com

    Measures Landlords and Property Managers Can Take in Response to a Reported COVID-19 Infection

    May 18, 2020 —
    Most landlords and property managers are now familiar with steps they should be taking to reduce the spread of COVID-19. But what if a tenant or employee has tested positive with COVID-19? Unfortunately, many landlords and property managers are grappling with this very question. While there’s some clarity as it pertains to evictions in the landlord-tenant context, other considerations like disinfection, required notices, and maintenance, are evolving or unclear. Here are steps landlords and property managers can take in response to an employee or tenant testing positive with COVID-19. Measures Landlords Can Take for Employees For workplaces, there is a large variety of guidelines and procedures that are generally available to review. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has valuable guidance available online here and here. The Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA) has valuable guidance available online here. In short, if there is an incident where one employee may have exposed others to COVID-19, here are five steps employers should take:
    1. Send the affected employee home and instruct them not to return to work until the criteria to discontinue home isolation are met in consultation with healthcare providers, and state and local health departments. Make sure to maintain all information about employee illnesses as a confidential medical record.
    2. Ask the affected employee whether they have had close contact with any other workers.
    Reprinted courtesy of J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer Dillion and Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Janecek may be contacted at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at jason.morris@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of