BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut architecture 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


    Indemnity: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You!

    Los Angeles Delays ‘Mansion Tax’ Spending Amid Legal Fight

    The Ghosts of Tariffs Past May Help Us in the Future

    Insurer Obligated to Cover Preventative Remediation of Construction Defects

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014

    How VR and AR Will Help in Remote Expert Assistance

    Oregon Codifies Tall Wood Buildings

    Narrow House Has Wide Opposition

    Techniques for Resolving Construction Disputes

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

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

    Hundreds of Snakes Discovered in Santa Ana Home

    Safe Commercial Asbestos-Removal Practices

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims Four Years Later: What Have We Learned?

    Designers Face Fatal Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Fallout

    Performance Bond Primer: Need to Knows and Need to Dos

    Top Developments March 2024

    California Supreme Court Holds that Requirement of Prejudice for Late Notice Defense is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State for Choice of Law Analysis

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    A Glimpse Into Post-Judgment Collections and Perhaps the Near Future?

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking

    Pine Island Bridge in Place as Florida Pushes Barrier Island Access in Ian's Wake

    Formal Request for Time Extension Not Always Required to Support Constructive Acceleration

    Evergrande’s Condemned Towers on China’s Hawaii Show Threat

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Zero-Energy Commercial Buildings Increase as Contractors Focus on Sustainability

    NTSB Sheds Light on Fatal Baltimore Work Zone Crash

    Cincinnati Goes Green

    Tesla’s Solar Roof Pricing Is Cheap Enough to Catch Fire

    LA Metro To Pay Kiewit $297.8M Settlement on Freeway Job

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

    Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Collaborating or Competing with Construction Tech Startups

    Preparing for the 2015 Colorado Legislative Session

    Architect Named Grand Custom Home Winner for Triangular Design

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    In South Carolina, Insurer's Denial of Liability Does Not Waive Attorney-Client Privilege for Bad Faith Claim

    Contractor Side Deals Can Waive Rights

    Connecticut Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/8/24) – Hotel Labor Disputes, a Congressional Real Estate Caucus and Freddie Mac’s New Policies

    White Collar Overtime Regulations Temporarily Blocked

    Proposed Changes to Federal Lease Accounting Standards

    Transition Study a Condo Board’s First Defense against Construction Defects

    California Fears El Nino's Dark Side Will Bring More Trouble

    Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level

    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

    West Virginia Wild: Crews Carve Out Corridor H Through the Appalachian Mountains

    MBS’s $500 Billion Desert Dream Just Keeps Getting Weirder

    Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional
    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

    Reasons to Be Skeptical About a Millennial Homebuying Boom in 2016

    December 10, 2015 —
    Predicting whether millennials are finally going to start buying homes in large numbers has become a seasonal sporting event for real estate experts (also something resembling a periodic parental nag). There's good reason for the abiding fixation. Millennials are the largest generation in the U.S. labor force and something akin to guppies in the housing market food chain: When a first-time buyer moves into an entry-level house, it lets the sellers upgrade. But they've been held back by housing price increases that outpace wage hikes, not to mention limited access to credit, and rising rents that make it harder to save for a down payment. Will next year be the year that millennials1 finally satisfy builders and real estate agents (not to mention mom and dad) by making their presence felt in the housing market? Yes, but not to the degree that many might hope. Millennials will make up the largest share of homebuyers in 2016 This is more of a demographic inevitability than a prediction. Historically, the largest share of U.S. homebuyers have been between 25 and 34 years old. Millennials will buy one out of three homes in 2016, predicts Jonathan Smoke, chief economist for Realtor.com, a small uptick from this year. If you prefer your glass half empty, though, Zillow Chief Economist Svenja Gudell thinks the median age of first-time home buyers will hit a new high next year. In either case, Americans will continue the trend of buying their first homes later in life than they did in past decades, as the chart below shows—likely due to some mix of wage stagnation, rising housing costs, and a tendency to start families later in life. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark, Bloomberg

    For Smart Home Technology, the Contract Is Key

    June 07, 2021 —
    In our previous post we discussed the importance of conducting a thorough due diligence and procurement process with smart technology providers. Next up? The contract. The price of a procured product is always important, but equally important are other contractual terms that reflect the commercial agreement. Ultimately, the contract should answer the fundamental question of “What are you buying?” The product itself is not the only feature being purchased. A customer is also buying certainty, service performance, risk mitigation, flexibility, security, compliance, and other similar “intangible” items of value. The Price of Certainty As part of the price, the purchaser of smart technology is also buying certainty. What do we mean by that? Reprinted courtesy of James W. McPhillips, Pillsbury and Rachel Newell, Pillsbury Mr. McPhillips may be contacted at james.mcphillips@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Newell may be contacted at rachel.newell@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case

    January 22, 2014 —
    In the case Phillips v. Parmelee, the Wisconsin Supreme court ruled “that an asbestos exclusion in a liability policy barred a duty to defend and indemnify a building seller for claims that the seller failed to disclose that the building contained asbestos,” according to an article in Mondaq by Ruth S. Kochenderfer and Deanna P. Cook, both from Steptoe & Johnson LLP. The policyholder received a building report stating that the “heating ducts likely contained asbestos,” however, the buyers alleged that the policyholder never provided them the report. After the buyers purchased the property, contractors “cut through the heating ducts, unknowingly dispersing asbestos throughout the building.” According to Kochenderfer and Cook’s article, “The insurer intervened in the buyers' suit and sought summary judgment against the policyholder and buyers, arguing that an asbestos exclusion precluded coverage for the buyers' suit against the policyholder.” The buyers took the case to the Wisconsin Supreme court and “attacked the asbestos exclusion,” but the court rejected every argument. Kochenderfer and Cook stated that the “decision is significant because three courts, including Wisconsin's highest court, squarely rejected attempts to narrow a broad, clearly-worded asbestos exclusion. Further, it confirms that such an asbestos exclusion will apply to all causes of action, including an alleged failure to disclose the presence of asbestos.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 – Expert Testimony

    October 30, 2023 —
    In April, the Supreme Court sent a list of proposed amendments to Congress that amend the Federal Rules of Evidence. Absent action by Congress, the rules go into effect December 1, 2023. The proposed amendments affect Rules 106, 615 and, relevant to this article, 702. Rule 702 addresses testimony by an expert witness. The proposed rule reads as follows (new material is underlined; matters omitted are lined through): A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:
    1. the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
    2. the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
    3. the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
    4. the expert has reliably applied expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Iowa Court Holds Defective Work Performed by Insured's Subcontractor Constitutes an "Occurrence"

    July 28, 2016 —
    The Iowa Supreme Court held that property damage caused by a subcontractor's defective work was an "occurrence." Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Westlake Invs., LLC, 2016 Iowa LEXIS 71 (Iowa June 10, 2016). In 2002, the insureds, the developers and general contractor, began construction on an apartment complex. While the complex was still under construction, it was purchased by Westlake Investments, LLC. During construction, numerous problems surfaced, including visible water penetration issues in several buildings. In February 2008, Westlake sued the insureds, seeking to recover lost profits, repair costs, and other damages under tort and contract theories. Arch Insurance Group defended under the primary policy. A settlement was eventually reached whereby a consent judgment for $15,600,000 was entered against the insureds and in favor of Westlake. Arch contributed its policy limits of $1,000,000 to the settlement. Other third party defendants contributed $1,737,500, leaving $12,762,500 of the judgment unsatisfied. The insureds assigned rights under their excess policy with National Surety Corporation (NSC) to Westlake. NSC's policy was a following-form policy. 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

    NYC Design Firm Executives Plead Guilty in Pay-to-Play Scheme

    June 18, 2019 —
    Two former top executives of New York City-based engineer HAKS pleaded guilty in city court May 13 to bribe charges related to efforts to gain municipal water infrastructure contracts, according to court filings, an attorney for its ex-chief financial officer and plea agreements provided to ENR by the Manhattan district attorney's office. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Tennessee Looks to Define Improvements to Real Property

    January 27, 2020 —
    For subrogation practitioners dealing with an installation-based statute of repose, knowing what is an improvement to real property is the first battle in what can, but does not have to be, a long fight. Like many other states, Tennessee’s statute of repose bars claims based on improvements to real property. Tennessee’s statute of repose runs four years after substantial completion of the improvement. See Tennessee Code Ann. § 28-3-202. In the case of Maddox v. Olshan Found. Repair & Waterproofing Co. of Nashville, L.P., E A, 2019 Tenn.App. LEXIS 464, 2019 WL 4464816, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee examined whether or not the work done by the defendant, Olshan Foundation Repair & Waterproofing Co. of Nashville, L.P., E.A. (Olshan) — which addressed bowing walls, cracks in the foundation and walls and water intrusion — qualified as improvements to real property for the purposes of the statute of repose. The court held that the work by Olshan essentially amounted to repairs, and did not qualify as improvements to real property. In Maddox, the plaintiff, Rachel Maddox (Maddox), noticed cracking in her home in 2005 and hired Olshan to assess the issue and conduct necessary repairs. Olshan made several recommendations and the parties agreed on Olshan’s proposal for the price of $27,000. From their initial work in 2005 until late 2011, Olshan visited the property several times to address ongoing structural issues with the home. Eventually, eight months after Olshan told Maddox they could not fix the house and failed to return her phone calls, Maddox filed suit, alleging fraud against the company. After a three-day bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiff for $187,000, plus $15,0000 in punitive damages. Among other holdings, the court rejected Olshan’s statute of repose defense. Olshan appealed, raising the statute of repose issue again. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    Partner Lisa M. Rolle and Associate Vito John Marzano Obtain Dismissal of Third-Party Indemnification Claims

    December 22, 2019 —
    On June 1, 2019, Traub Lieberman partner Lisa M. Rolle and associate Vito John Marzano successfully secured dismissal of all third-party claims on behalf of a corporate entity and its principal in a third-party action in the New York State Supreme Court, County of Bronx. The underlying action concerned a trip and fall that occurred on a public sidewalk located in the Bronx. Plaintiff commenced suit against the corporation property owner and its principal. Defendants/third-party plaintiffs commenced the third-party action seeking contractual and common-law indemnification against three third-party defendants, the corporate tenant, another corporate entity that was not a party to the lease and its principal. Traub Lieberman represented the latter two third-party defendants. On behalf of the corporate entity that was not a party to the lease, Traub Lieberman moved for dismissal on the basis that the lease constitutes documentary evidence establishing as a matter of law that the non-tenant corporation cannot be held liable to third-party plaintiffs. On behalf of the principal, Traub Lieberman sought dismissal for failure to state a cause of action because the principal was shielded from liability by virtue of having incorporated his business, and the complaint did not allege a claim for piercing the corporate veil. In opposition, third-party plaintiffs sought to amplify their pleadings by alleging that a de facto merger had occurred between the non-tenant corporation and the tenant corporation. Third-party plaintiffs further argued that the corporate principal executed a guaranty to the lease, thus accepting liability on behalf of the tenant corporation. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and Vito John Marzano, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Marzano may be contacted at vmarzano@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of