BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling 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


    Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

    Virginia Joins California and Nevada in Passing its Consumer Privacy Act

    Know and Meet Your Notice Requirements or Lose Your Payment Bond Claims

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    Eleven WSHB Lawyers Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

    Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

    City Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective Wall

    New FAR Rule Mandates the Use of PLAs on Large Construction Projects

    ABC, Via Construction Industry Safety Coalition, Comments on Silica Rule

    Texas Considers a Quartet of Construction Bills

    With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

    Chambers USA 2020 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Scientists found a way to make Cement Greener

    Zoning Hearing Notice Addressed by Georgia Appeals Court

    Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect

    “Based On”… What Exactly? NJ Appellate Division Examines Phrase and Estops Insurer From Disclaiming Coverage for 20-Month Delay

    Manufacturer of Asbestos-Free Product May Still Be Liable for Asbestos Related Injuries

    Overruling Henkel, California Supreme Court Validates Assignment of Policies

    Construction Calamity: Risk Transfer Tips for Contractors After a Catastrophic Loss

    Event-Cancellation Insurance Issues During a Pandemic

    New York State Trial Court: Non-Cumulation Provision in Excess Policies Mandates “All Sums” Allocation

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Finding of Bad Faith, Award of Costs and Prejudgment Interest

    Shimmick Gets Nod for Second Pilot Pile at Settling Millennium Tower

    Ex-Detroit Demolition Official Sentenced for Taking Bribes

    Skyline Cockpit’s Game-Changing Tower Crane Teleoperation

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stuck on You”

    Reminder: Always Order a Title Search for Your Mechanic’s Lien

    Meet Daniel Hall, Assistant Professor at TU Delft

    Delaware Supreme Court Won’t Halt Building

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    Contractors Must Register with the L&I Prior to Offering or Performing Work, or Risk Having their Breach of Contract Case Dismissed

    How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law

    Government Claims Act Does Not Apply to Actions Solely Seeking Declaratory Relief and Not Monetary Relief

    Women Make Their Mark on Construction Leadership

    Yet ANOTHER Reminder to Always Respond

    Finding Highway Compromise ‘Tough,’ DOT Secretary Says

    Craig Holden Named Top 100 Lawyer by Los Angeles Business Journal

    Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

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

    Bar to Raise on Green Standard

    Haight Welcomes Robert S. Rucci

    One Way Arbitration Provisions are Enforceable in Virginia

    Attention Contractors: U.S. Department of Labor Issues Guidance on Avoiding Discrimination When Using AI in Hiring

    Architect Norman Foster Tells COP26: Change 'Traditional' City Design to Combat Climate Change

    Cyber Thieves Phish Away a $735K Payment to a Minnesota Contractor

    Recent Opinions Clarify Enforceability of Pay-if-Paid Provisions in Construction Contracts

    Maui Wildfire Cleanup Could Cost $1B and Take One Year
    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

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    May 19, 2011 —

    WSMV, Nashville reports that the ceiling collapse in a Franklin, Tennessee Kohl’s was attributed to a construction defect by fire officials. The officials noted that the ceiling was renovated at the time. No injuries were reported.

    The report notes that “inspectors were supposed to look at the renovations next week, but fire officials said that will have to be delayed until another time.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Another Defect Found on the Bay Bridge: Water Leakage

    February 11, 2014 —
    According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the eastern span of the Bay Bridge has dealt with alleged “defective welds” and “cracked steel rods,” and now there are reports of leakage. The Chronicle stated that rainwater “is dripping into the steel structure beneath the road deck on the suspension stretch of the span, which,” according to Caltrans “is supposed to be watertight.” Water corrosion on a bridge could cost $6.4 billion, the San Francisco Chronicle claimed. Caltrans said that they “are going to have teams of engineers and inspectors there this weekend to assess the problem.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

    June 02, 2016 —
    In its most recent session, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 943, which amends Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute. The amendment expands the Anti-Indemnity Statute beyond construction contracts to include contracts for engineering, architectural, and land surveying services (“A/E Contracts”). In a prior post, we discussed Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute, which generally prohibits indemnity clauses in construction contracts that require one party (the “Indemnitor”) to indemnify another party (the “Indemnitee”) if property damage or bodily injury results from the Indemnitee’s sole negligence. The prior post, discussed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s broad interpretation of the Anti-Indemnity Statute. HB 943 adds subpart (c), which states:
    A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement for engineering, architectural, or land surveying services purporting to require that one party to such contract or agreement shall indemnify, hold harmless, insure, or defend the other party to the contract or other named indemnitee, including its, his, or her officers, agents, or employees, against liability or claims for damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, is against public policy and void and unenforceable, except for indemnification for damages, losses, or expenses to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the indemnitor or other persons employed or utilized by the indemnitor in the performance of the contract. This subsection shall not affect any obligation under workers’ compensation or coverage or insurance specifically relating to workers’ compensation, nor shall this subsection apply to any requirement that one party to the contract purchase a project specific insurance policy or project specific policy endorsement.
    (Emphasis added.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (04/26/23) – The Energy Transition and a Bit of Brick-and-Mortar Blues

    May 01, 2023 —
    In today’s roundup, Americans can buy homes with bitcoin, new tech aims to engineer a novel building material, federal investments boost the coastline (and construction sales), and more. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Read the Property Insurance Policy to be Sure You are Complying with Post Loss Obligations

    January 04, 2021 —
    I have discussed this before in prior postings, but it is worth repeating. It is imperative for an insured to comply with post loss obligations in a property insurance policy. Not doing so gives the insurer the argument that its insured forfeited coverage under the policy. Naturally, this is never what an insured wants as this is contrary to submitting an insurance claim to begin with. To avoid this situation, an insured should consult with counsel and read the policy including endorsements issued to the policy to be sure that post loss obligations are complied with and, if they are not, there is a basis supported by case law. In a recent case, Goldberg v. Universal Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2118b (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), the property insurance policy for hurricanes and windstorms contained the following through an endorsement issued to the policy: You must give notice of a claim, a supplemental claim, or reopened claim for loss or damage caused by the peril of windstorm or hurricane, with us in accordance with the terms of this policy and within three years after the hurricane first made landfall or the windstorm caused the covered damage. For purposes of this Section, the term “supplemental claim” or “reopened claim” means any additional claim for recovery from us for losses from the same hurricane or windstorm which we have previously adjusted pursuant to the initial claim. . . . 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

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    July 09, 2019 —
    A tower crane being dismantled collapsed Saturday, April 27 in Seattle, killing four people, including two ironworkers on the crane and two bystanders on the street below. The jobsite, located in a Google office development in Seattle's bustling South Lake Union neighborhood, is adjacent to a busy intersection where traffic had not been blocked off during the crane’s disassembly. It is the first fatal crane accident in the Puget Sound region since a crane collapse in Bellevue, Wash., in 2006 that killed one person. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, ENR
    Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Sub-Contractor

    July 25, 2022 —
    Interpreting Connecticut law, the federal district court had that the insured sub-contractor was entitled to a defense. County Wide Mech. Servs. LLC v. Regent Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86726 (D. Conn. May 13, 2022). The underlying plaintiff, The Saybrook at Haddam, entered a contract with PAC Group to serve as general contractor for construction of an addition to The Saybrook's facility. PAC Group sub-contracted with County Wide Mechanical Services to install the HVAC system. The HVAC system was put into service on November 14, 2014. In October 2019, The Saybrook filed the underlying action against PAC group, County Wide, and others. The underlying complaint alleged that there had been at least seven "critical failures" of the HVAC system. As a result, The Seabrook had to replace multiple compressors and several circuit boards, valves, and other components. Further, the entire system had to be replaced. The underlying complaint alleged breach of contract against PAC Group and County Wide. In addition to the alleged breach of contract between The Saybrook and County Wide, the Saybrook also alleged it was a third-party beneficiary of PAC Group's contract with County Wide regarding installation of the HVAC system. PAC Group cross-claimed against County Wide, asserting one count of contractual indemnification and one count of breach of contract under the PAC Group's contract with County Wide. 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

    Mercury News Editorial Calls for Investigation of Bay Bridge Construction

    July 01, 2014 —
    Editors at the San Jose Mercury News called for investigations of the construction of the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge: “It's time for public officials, especially members of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, state legislators and Gov. Jerry Brown, to demand thorough independent analyses.” Problems with the $6.5 billion structure were found about nine months ago, which led to questions regarding the “integrity and maintenance costs” that were allegedly covered up by Caltrans officials. Issues raised included questions “about the strength of thousands of bolts, including at the base of the tower and the connections of the main cable; cracked welds in the suspension span; and rusting of the single cable holding up the bridge.” The Mercury editors, however, do not show much optimism about the situation: “It's likely that, absent a political outcry, Caltrans will sign off. From the start, agency officials have failed to adequately oversee the construction and thrown public money at problems while trying to cover-up their own failures. Brown, ultimately responsible for Caltrans, has dismissed concerns about the bridge's integrity.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of