BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut expert witness windows
    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


    Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2024 “Best Law Firms” Rankings

    “But I didn’t know what I was signing….”

    Denver Council Committee Approves Construction Defects Ordinance

    CDJ’s #4 Topic of the Year: KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County

    Preventing Acts of God: Construction Accidents Caused by Outside Factors

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: Indemnity Provisions

    CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances

    Trial Victory in San Mateo County!

    Cost of Materials Holding Back Housing Industry

    Gone Fishing: Tenant’s Insurer Casts A Line Seeking To Subrogate Against The Landlord

    When OSHA Cites You

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/18/23) – Construction Inventory, 3D Printing, and Metaverse Replicas

    Novation Agreements Under Federal Contracts

    Tiny Houses Big With U.S. Owners Seeking Economic Freedom

    Recovering For Inflation On Federal Contracts: Recent DOD Guidance On Economic Price Adjustment Clauses

    Before Collapse, Communications Failed to Save Bridge Project

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals’ Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases

    Unfortunate Event Test Leads to Three Occurrences

    Home Improvement in U.S. Slowing or Still Intact -- Which Is It?

    How to Get Your Bedroom Into the Met Museum

    Are You Ready For 2015?

    Housing Agency Claims It Is Not a Party in Construction Defect Case

    Key Economic & Geopolitical Themes To Monitor In 2024

    Contractors Should Be Optimistic that the Best Value Tradeoff Process Will Be Employed by Civilian Agencies

    Homebuilding Design Goes 3D

    Massachusetts Business Court Addresses Defense Cost Allocation and Non-Cumulation Provisions in Long-Tail Context

    Panama Weighs Another Canal Expansion at Centennial Mark

    Stadium Intended for the 2010 World Cup Still Not Ready

    #7 CDJ Topic: Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia

    Is Your Construction Business Feeling the Effects of the Final DBA Rule?

    Unravel the Facts Before Asserting FDUTPA and Tortious Interference Claims

    Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed

    Suit Limitation Provisions in New York

    Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 1 – Substantive Due Process

    Congratulations 2019 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Deductibles Limited to Number of Suits Filed Against Insured, Not Number of Actual Plaintiffs

    The Argument for Solar Power

    Is It Time to Digitize Safety?

    White and Williams Selected in the 2024 Best Law Firms ranked by Best Lawyers®

    What is an Alternative Dispute Resolution?

    And the Winner Is . . . The Right to Repair Act!

    A Classic Blunder: Practical Advice for Avoiding Two-Front Wars

    Surety Trends to Keep an Eye on in the Construction Industry

    Drafting a Contractual Arbitration Provision

    Risk-Shifting Tactics for Construction Contracts

    Housing in U.S. Cools as Rate Rise Hits Sales: Mortgages

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Negligence and Private Nuisance

    The Treasures Inside Notre Dame Cathedral

    New NEPA Rule Restores Added Infrastructure Project Scrutiny

    Eleventh Circuit’s Noteworthy Discussion on Bad Faith Insurance Claims
    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

    Let the 90-Day Countdown Begin

    February 11, 2019 —
    Most contractors are diligent about making sure that they pay their licensing fees, renew worker’s compensation insurance, and maintain the required bonds. What may be less obvious is how critically important it is to have current company personnel listed on the company’s licensing records with the Contractor’s State Licensing Board. Only personnel listed on the CSLB’s records are authorized to act on behalf of the licensee with respect to CSLB-related matters. Although this may sound simple enough, all such personnel will be required to comply with fingerprinting (and background check) requirements before their applications to be added to the company’s licensing records can be approved. No new personnel will be associated with the licensee until their application is determined to be acceptable and all other requirements are met. Unforeseeable processing delays could result in this new personnel being unable to timely act on behalf of the licensee. Reprinted courtesy of Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury and Robert A. James, Pillsbury Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    An Obligation to Provide Notice and an Opportunity to Cure May not End after Termination, and Why an Early Offer of Settlement Should Be Considered on Public Works Contracts

    August 17, 2020 —
    In 2015, the City of Puyallup (“City”) and Conway Construction Company (“Conway”) executed a public works contract for road improvements (“Project”). On March 9, 2016, approximately four months after work started on the Project, the City issued Conway a notice of suspension and breach of contract and identified nine defective and uncorrected work and safety concerns. Conway denied any wrongdoing, and on March 25, 2016, the City issued a notice of termination for default and withheld payments due to Conway. Conway subsequently filed suit in Pierce County Superior Court and alleged the City’s termination for default breached the contract and sought a determination that the City’s termination for default was improper and should be deemed a termination for convenience. Conway sought approximately $1.25 million in damages and recovery of its attorney fees and costs. Following a bench trial, the Trial Court found the City breached the contract and awarded Conway damages, attorney fees, and costs. The City appealed.[1] On appeal, after affirming the trial court’s determination that the City improperly terminated Conway, the Court of Appeals considered two other issues raised by the City. First, whether the City was entitled to a set-off for replacing defective work discovered after Conway was terminated. Second, whether Conway is entitled to attorney fees if it did not make the statutorily required offer of settlement per RCW 39.04.240. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Kaatz, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Mr. Kaatz may be contacted at Jeff.Kaatz@acslawyers.com

    Texas Jury Finds Presence of SARS-CoV-2 Virus Causes “Physical Loss or Damage” to Property, Awards Over $48 Million to Baylor College of Medicine

    September 26, 2022 —
    A Texas jury has found that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus on the property of Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) caused “physical loss or damage” and resulting economic loss, triggering coverage under BCM’s commercial property insurance program. The jury awarded BCM over $48 million following a three-day trial; the award consisted of $42.8 million in business interruption, $3.3 million in extra expense, and $2.3 million in damage to research projects. The verdict came after the court denied the insurers’ pre-trial motion for summary judgment, rejecting the insurers’ contention that a virus cannot—as a matter of law—cause physical loss or damage to property. In denying the motion, the court held that whether the presence of the virus causes physical loss or damage presents a question of fact for the jury to resolve; a copy of the order rejecting the insurers’ summary judgment argument can be found here. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    December 05, 2022 —
    NASHVILLE, TN. — The Tennessee Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released the 2022 Report Card for Tennessee's Infrastructure today, with 13 categories of infrastructure receiving an overall grade of a 'C', the same grade given by the section in its 2016 report. That means Tennessee's infrastructure is in mediocre condition and requires attention, but is a step ahead of the national average of "C-" given in the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. Tennessee's freight network is strong and plays a major role in the national economy as a key mobility hub and its energy grid has been reliable, allowing families and businesses to operate efficiently. Many of the state's systems are performing at or above national averages; however, a surge in population growth, increasingly severe weather impacts, and insufficient data on the current condition of several infrastructure sectors threaten the long-term viability of the state's overall network. Civil engineers graded aviation (C+), bridges (B), dams (D+), drinking water (C+), energy (C+), inland waterways (C), parks (C+), rail (C), roads (C), solid waste (C+), stormwater (C+), transit (D+), and wastewater (C-). "As one of the most prominent mobility hubs in all of America, infrastructure is the backbone to all we do here in Memphis, and everything we can accomplish throughout the great state of Tennessee," said Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland. "Our airports, roads and bridges keep our economy flowing, drawing more jobs and businesses in the future. The ASCE report is a critical tool for tracking our progress, in addition to highlighting where we could use some work. With more people flocking to Tennessee than ever before, this is an exciting time and our infrastructure networks must be ready to help us capitalize on the opportunity." To view the report card and all five categories, visit https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/tennessee/. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    March 18, 2019 —
    In Lawrence v. General Panel Corp., 2019 S.C. LEXIS 1, No. 27856 (S.C. Jan. 1, 2019), the Supreme Court of South Carolina answered a certified question related to South Carolina’s statute of repose, S.C. Code § 15-3-640,[1] to wit, whether the date of “substantial completion of the improvement” is always measured from the date on which the certificate of occupancy is issued. The court held that a 2005 amendment to § 15-3-640 did not change South Carolina law with respect to the date of substantial completion. Thus, under the revised version of § 15-3-640, “the statute of repose begins to run at the latest on the date of the certificate of occupancy, even if there is ongoing work on any particular part of the project.” A brief review of prior case law may assist with understanding the court’s ruling in Lawrence. In Ocean Winds Corp. of Johns Island v. Lane, 556 S.E.2d 377 (S.C. 2001), the Supreme Court of South Carolina addressed the question of whether § 15-3-640 ran from substantial completion of the installation of the windows at issue or on substantial completion of the building as a whole. Citing § 15-3-630(b),[2] the court found that the windows “were ‘a specified area or portion’ of the larger condominium project” and, upon their incorporation into the larger project they could be used for the purpose for which they were intended. Thus, the court held that “the statute of repose began running when installation of the windows was complete.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Allegations of Collapse Rejected

    August 08, 2018 —
    In yet another of the collapse cases being litigated in state and federal courts in Connecticut, the federal district court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss. Rosenberger v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95345 (D. Conn. June 6, 2018). The insureds had policies with Amica since 1989. Policies before December 18, 2006, covered collapse caused by hidden decay or other specified causes. "Collapse" was not defined by the policy. These policies did not include any provisions explicitly excluding coverage for a chemical reaction. The post-2006 policies held by the insureds covered collapse, but under a significantly modified definition. The newer policy language stated that "collapse applies only to an abrupt collapse." Further, collapse was defined as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building with the result that the building or part of the building cannot be occupied for its intended purpose." 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

    U.S. District Court of Colorado Interprets Insurance Policy’s Faulty Workmanship Exclusion and Exception for Ensuing Damage

    August 15, 2022 —
    Recently, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado interpreted a faulty workmanship exclusion in a property insurance policy in The Lodge at Mountain Village Owner Association v. Eighteen Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s of London, 22 U.S Dist. Ct LEXIS 48883*, decided on March 18, 2022. The Court held that the faulty workmanship exclusion at issue extended to preclude coverage for later ensuing damage that arose from the faulty workmanship, even though the damage was weather related, because faulty workmanship was the primary cause of the ensuing damage. The claims in The Lodge at Mountain Village arose from maintenance work performed on log siding at three multi-unit condominium buildings in Telluride. The maintenance work to the log siding included staining, finishing, and chinking repairs to joints between the logs. About a year after completion of the work, The Lodge at Mountain Village Owners Association (“The Lodge”) notified the maintenance contractor that logs were extremely weathered and that its work was defective. The Lodge retained an expert who prepared a report stating that the log finish and underlying wood was deteriorating because of the contractor’s work and that some areas were not properly protected from exposure to snow, rain, and brine from ice-melting salt. The Lodge pursued and settled its claims against the contractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Carin Ramirez, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Ms. Ramirez may be contacted at ramirez@hhmrlaw.com

    Florida Law: Interplay of SIR and the Made-Whole Doctrine

    March 12, 2015 —
    Amanda Baggett of Roger Towers explained the nuances of self-insured retention or “SIR,” which “typically refers to a dollar amount stated in a liability policy that the insured must satisfy before the insurer is required to defend or indemnify a claim.” Baggett stated that most of the time, the SIR is satisfied by the insurer paying the initial defense costs up to the SIR. However, “the Florida Supreme Court has held that an insured may satisfy the SIR using funds received from a third party. Intervest Construction of Jax, Inc. v. General Fidelity Ins. Co., 133 So. 3d 494 (Fla. 2014).” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of