BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineer
    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


    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Alleged Willful Coal Removal

    Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit

    More thoughts on Virginia Mechanic’s Liens

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (02/08/23) – The Build America, Buy America Act, ESG Feasibility, and University Partnerships

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (09/12/23) – Airbnb’s Future in New York City, MGM Resorts Suffer Cybersecurity Incident, and Insurance Costs Hitting Commercial Real Estate

    City Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective Wall

    Certain Private Projects Now Fall Under Prevailing Wage Laws. Is Yours One of Them?

    Workplace Safety–the Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense

    Nebraska Court Ruling Backs Latest Keystone XL Pipeline Route

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

    Hong Kong Property Tycoon Makes $533 Million Bet on Solar

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Fifth Circuit Confirms: Insurer Must Defend Despite Your Work/Your Product Exclusion

    Margins May Shrink for Home Builders

    Voluntary Payments Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply in Contract Cases

    Sun, Sand and Stir-Fry? Miami Woos Chinese for Property: Cities

    Georgia Super Lawyers Recognized Two Lawyers from Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    Smart Contracts Poised to Impact the Future of Construction

    Construction Defect Settlement in Seattle

    Failure to Comply with Contract Leaves No Additional Insured Coverage

    Wildfire Risk Scores and Insurance Placement: What You Should Know

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Hacking Claim Under E&O Policy

    Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards

    Court Narrowly Interprets “Faulty Workmanship” Provision

    Eleventh Circuit Rules That Insurer Must Defend Contractor Despite “Your Work” Exclusion, Where Damage Timing Unclear

    Scaffolding Collapse Kills Workers at China Construction Site

    Thanks to All for the 2024 Super Lawyers Nod!

    My Construction Law Wish List

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders

    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    Congratulations to Associate Madeline Arcellana on Her Selection as a Top Rank Attorney in Southern Nevada!

    Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner

    Structural Defects Lead Schools to Close off Areas

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    New Report Reveals Heavy Civil Construction Less Impacted by COVID-19 Than Commercial Construction

    Affordable Housing, Military Contracts and Mars: 3D Printing Construction Potential Builds

    NYC Shuts 9 Pre-Kindergartens for Health, Safety Issues

    Owner’s Slander of Title Claim Against Contractor Recording Four Separate Mechanics Liens Fails Under the Anti-SLAPP Statute

    Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery

    Contractor Covered for Voluntary Remediation Efforts in Completed Homes

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increase at Slower Pace

    Ortega Outbids Pros to Build $10 Billion Property Empire

    Not a Waiver for All: Maryland Declines to Apply Subrogation Waiver to Subcontractors

    The (Jurisdictional) Rebranding of The CDA’s Sum Certain Requirement

    Investigation of Orange County Landslide

    Building Materials Price Increase Clause for Contractors and Subcontractors – Three Options
    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

    Don’t Spoil Me: Oklahoma District Court Rules Against Spoliation Sanctions

    January 08, 2024 —
    In Okla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Omega Flex, Inc., No. CIV-22-18-D, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197755, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (the District Court) determined spoliation sanctions were not warranted after a home was demolished for repair following a joint scene examination. The insurer, Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer) provided a policy of insurance to Michael and Sondra Diel (the Diels). On July 11, 2020, the Diels’ home was struck by lightning and their attic caught fire. Following the loss, Insurer retained both counsel and fire origin and cause experts to inspect the Diels’ property. Insurer’s counsel informed in-house counsel for Omega Flex, Inc. (Omega Flex) via a letter dated July 14, 2020, that a preliminary investigation indicated the fire may have been caused by an Omega Flex product—specifically, TracPipe Corrugated Stainless Steel Tubing (CSST). Insurer’s counsel invited Omega Flex to inspect the property, noting: “It is anticipated that the loss will exceed $300,000” and stating that any inspection “must be completed during the next two weeks. At that time, the homeowner will proceed with demolition to rebuild.” (Emphasis added). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

    The Show Must Go On: Shuttered Venues Operators Grant Provides Lifeline for Live Music and Theater Venues

    March 29, 2021 —
    Although it’s been a tough twelve months for many live music venues, movie theaters, and performing arts organizations, help may finally be around the corner. On December 27, 2020, the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act was signed into law, creating a $15 billion fund for grants to shuttered venues to be administered by the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) Office of Disaster Assistance. The law states that Shuttered Venues Operator Grants (“SVOGs”) will be made available to the following entities and individuals:
    1. Live venue operators or promoters;
    2. Theatrical producers;
    3. Live performing arts organization operators;
    4. Relevant museum operators, zoos, and aquariums which meet specific criteria;
    5. Movie theater operators;
    6. Talent representatives; and
    7. Each business entity owned by an eligible entity that also meets the eligibility requirements.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Rao, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Rao may be contacted at drao@swlaw.com

    U.K. Puts Tax on Developers to Fund Safer Apartment Blocks

    March 08, 2021 —
    The U.K. announced an extra 3.5 billion pounds ($4.8 billion) toward the cost of stripping dangerous cladding from apartment blocks in England, with a new tax on developers from next year to help cover the costs. Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick said the new cash will add to a previously announced 1.6 billion-pound “safety fund” to remove the material, which was blamed for the deaths of 72 people in a catastrophic fire at London’s Grenfell Tower in 2017. A new tax will be introduced for U.K. residential developers in 2022 to raise at least 2 billion pounds over the next decade to ensure homebuilders “make a fair contribution” to solving the problem, Jenrick told the House of Commons on Wednesday. Reprinted courtesy of Emily Ashton, Bloomberg and Olivia Konotey-Ahulu, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Second Month of US Construction Spending Down

    November 05, 2014 —
    ABC News reported that US Construction spending was down again in September, though housing had a slight rebound. "Construction spending dropped 0.4 percent in September compared to August when spending fell 0.5 percent, the Commerce Department reported Monday," as quoted by ABC News. However, "expectation is that further gains in construction will help support growth this quarter and into next year. Many economists are looking for the economy to grow at a 3 percent rate in the final three months of this year and average 3 percent in 2015 as well," according to ABC News. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging

    December 06, 2021 —
    When Elmhurst Group, a Pittsburgh-area developer, started collecting bids for a new mixed-use building last November, the price of the steel frame, roof and cladding panels for the $14-million project came in $382,000 higher than expected—a big enough disappointment to give Elmhurst pause. Overall material costs for the project were running more than $650,000 above what was originally calculated. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record, Jonathan Barnes, Engineering News-Record and Greg Aragon, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Lawsuit May Affect Home Financing

    February 14, 2013 —
    Homeowners in the Burlingame Ranch I Condominium Association already say they have problems with the siding on their units. The Aspen Business Journal says that their next problem might be with lenders. According to the homeowners’ attorney, Chris Brody, the association attempted to work things out, but this was not successful. Mr. Brody was unaware of any issues with sales or refinancing, but the article notes that “at least one homeowner was told he could not refinance with a Fannie Mae backed loan if there’s pending litigation.” Last year, Fannie Mae did adopt a guideline that made homes involved in construction defect lawsuits ineligible for home loans. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    DHS Awards Contracts for Border Wall Prototypes

    September 20, 2017 —
    The Dept. of Homeland Security has awarded eight contracts to companies to develop prototypes for the Trump administration’s proposed wall along sections of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. The contracts are divided evenly between concrete and nonconcrete options. DHS’s Customs and Border Protection agency didn’t specify what sort of materials would be used in the nonconcrete barriers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR staff may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    March 28, 2012 —

    The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in the case La Tierra de Simmons Familia Ltd. V. Main Event Entertainment, LP. The trial court had found for Main Event. On appeal, the court threw out some of the grounds on which the trial court had reached its decision.

    The case involved two commercial lots in northwest Austin, Texas. The uphill tract (Phase III of the Anderson Arbor development) diverts its runoff onto the lower tract (the “Ballard tract”). The owners of the Ballard tract claim that “the drainage system was designed or constructed in a manner that has damaged and continues to damage the Ballard tract.”

    Both tracts have undergone changes of ownership since the construction of the drainage system in 2004. At the time the drainage system was constructed, the parcel was owned by Sears Roebuck and Co. Sears later sold the property. Main Event Entertainment is the current tenant. Likewise, the Ballard tract was previously owned by the Ballard Estate which sold the property to La Tierra on an “as is” basis in 2007.

    After La Tierra bought the Ballard tract, La Tierra’s engineer “witnessed and videotaped what he described as ‘flooding’ on the Ballard tract caused by storm water discharge from the Anderson Arbor drainage system during a rainfall event.” La Tierra determined that an adequate drainage system would cost about $204,000. Development plans were put on hold.

    La Tierra sued Main Event and various other parties associated with the uphill tract, seeking “actual damages for (1) decrease and loss in rental income due to delay in obtaining the development permit, (2) interest on carrying costs during that time period, (3) the cost to build a water conveyance system on the Ballard tract, (4) engineering fees incurred to redesign the water conveyance system, (5) unspecified out-of-pocket real estate expenses, and (6) property devaluation occasioned by the need to construct an expensive water conveyance system.” The trial court never reached these claims, ruling instead that La Tierra lacked standing, that its claims were barred under the statute of limitations, and that there was no evidence of damage.

    La Tierra appealed, arguing that “(1) the summary-judgment evidence does not conclusively establish that property damage claims accrued or were discovered prior to September 11, 2007, which is within the limitations period and was after La Tierra purchased the property; (2) even if the property was damaged before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract, standing exists based on the assignments of interest from the Ballard Estate heirs, and the discovery rule tolls limitations until the injury was discovered on September 11, 2007; (3) limitations does not bar La Tierra's request for injunctive relief; (4) La Tierra's water code claim against Main Event and M.E.E.P. is viable based on their control over the drainage system, which makes them necessary and indispensable parties for injunctive relief; (5) La Tierra presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact issue on damages, causation, and other essential elements of its causes of action; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the defendants' objections to La Tierra's summary-judgment evidence.”

    The appeals court concluded that La Tierra’s second claim was irrelevant to standing, as La Tierra “obtained assignments from the Ballard Estate heirs ? nearly one year after the lawsuit was initially filed.” Nor did the court accept their first point. The water system had been operating unaltered since January, 2004, with monthly maintenance and inspection to maintain its designed operation. Further, a feasibility report La Tierra received stated that “over sixteen acres drain into those ponds, and thus onto this site.” The court noted that “the underlying facts giving rise to a cause of action were known before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract.”

    The court concluded that the drainage issue is a permanent injury, but that it “accrued before La Tierra acquired an ownership interest in the property.” As La Tierra has standing, the appeals court ruled that it was improper for the trial court to rule on the issues. The appeals court dismissed the questions of whether the case was barred under the statute of limitation and also the question of whether or not La Tierra had damages.

    As the issue of standing would not allow La Tierra to bring the suit, the appeals court found for the defendants, dismissing the case for this single reason, and otherwise affirming the ruling of the lower court.

    Read the court’s decision…

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