BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance 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


    Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company

    Sometimes You Just Need to Call it a Day: Court Finds That Contractor Not Entitled to Recover Costs After Public Works Contract is Invalidated

    Zero-Net Energy Homes Costly Everywhere but at the Electric Meter

    Home Building Up in Kansas City

    As Fracture Questions Remain, Team Raced to Save Mississippi River Bridge

    Texas EIFS Case May Have Future Implications for Construction Defects

    Is Arbitration Okay Under the Miller Act? It Is if You Don’t Object

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

    Brookfield Wins Disputed Bid to Manage Manhattan Marina

    Governor Signs Permit Extension Bill Extending Permit Deadlines to One Year

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

    Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

    Settlement between IOSHA and Mid-America Reached after Stage Collapse Fatalities

    Michigan Lawmakers Pass $4.7B Infrastructure Spending Bill

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

    Triple Points to the English Court of Appeal for Clarifying the Law on LDs

    Condo Owners Suing Bank for Failing to Disclose Defects

    Corvette museum likely to keep part of sinkhole

    Balestreri Potocki & Holmes Attorneys Named 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Star

    Paul Tetzloff Elected As Newmeyer & Dillion Managing Partner

    Digital Twins – Interview with Cristina Savian

    NJ Court Reaffirms Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims and Finds Fraud Claims Inherently Intentional

    Miami Building Boom Spreads Into Downtown’s Tent City

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    NYC-N.J. Gateway Rail-Tunnel Work May Start in 2023

    Updated Covid-19 Standards In The Workplace

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    Seven Key Issues for Construction Professionals to Consider When Dealing With COVID-19

    Work to Solve the Mental Health Crisis in Construction

    Nationwide Immigrant Strike May Trigger Excusable Delay and Other Contract Provisions

    Stadium Intended for the 2010 World Cup Still Not Ready

    Adjuster's Report No Substitute for Proof of Loss Under Flood Policy

    Avoiding Construction Defect “Nightmares” in Florida

    Sinking Floor Does Not Meet Strict Definition of Collapse

    The Risk of A Fixed Price Contract Is The Market

    Construction defect firm Angius & Terry moves office to Roseville

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Navigating Complex Preliminary Notice Requirements

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Ritzy NYC Tower Developer Says Residents’ Lawsuit ‘Ill-Advised’

    Liability Coverage For Construction Claims May Turn On Narrow Factual Distinctions

    Tropical Storms Pile Up Back-to-Back-to-Back Out West

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    “Families First Coronavirus Response Act”: Emergency Paid Leave for Construction Employers with Fewer Than 500 Employees

    The Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Trial to Begin

    Under the Hood of U.S. Construction Spending Is Revised Data

    Attempt to Overrule Trial Court's Order to Produce Underwriting Manual Fails
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Do We Really Want Courts Deciding if Our Construction Contracts are Fair?

    March 19, 2015 —
    As I posted recently, the Virginia General Assembly has passed, and I can see no reason why the governor won’t sign, a bill that would essentially invalidate preemptive contractual waivers of lien rights as they relate to subcontractors and material suppliers. It does not apply to General Contractors, but it is a step in what many (including those attorneys that represent subcontractors and suppliers) believe is the right direction. Of course, as soon as I posted last week, my friend and colleague Scott Wolfe (@scottwolfejr) commented on that post and then gave his two cents worth at his Zlien blog. The gist of the comments here at Musings and the post over at his blog was essentially that these contractual provisions were inherently unfair and therefore should be abolished because of both a relative disparity in leverage between the Owner or GC and the Subcontractor when it comes to negotiations and the fact that subcontractors often don’t read their contracts or discuss them with a construction attorney prior to signing them. I hear this first of his arguments often when I am reviewing a contract after the fact and a client or potential client acts surprised that a provision will be enforced and the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia will actually enforce them. As to Scott’s second reason, I have always warned here at Musings that you should read your contracts carefully because they will be the law of your business relationship in the future. The first of his two points is more interesting and in some ways more easily supported. However, where we are speaking of contracts between businesses where both sides are bound by the terms of the contract, it begs the question of whether in seeking to make contracts more “fair” we could add a layer of uncertainty that could cause more problems than it solves. Do we really want courts stepping in after the fact to renegotiate the terms of a deal that was struck months or possibly years before because one judge believes that the deal was too one sided? Do we really need such “Monday morning quarterbacking?” Is one person’s idea of “fair” better than another’s when both parties to the contract had the full ability to read, negotiate and possibly reject the deal long ago? Personally, I think that the answer to these questions is, in all but the most egregious cases or where the legislatures have stepped in adding certainty (whether to the good or bad), “No.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    How Long does a Florida Condo Association Have to File a Construction Defect Claim?

    September 17, 2014 —
    According to a post on Orlando Sentinel’s HOA & Condo Blog, sponsored by the firm Becker & Poliakoff, generally a Condominium Association has “4 years from turnover of control of the Condominium Association from the developer” to file a lawsuit for construction defects. However, the association may have additional time to file. If defects from the original construction were discovered after the 4 years have lapsed, “[a] condominium association may still pursue a claim for latent defects,” which is one that “is hidden, and not discovered despite the exercise of due diligence, for the period of 4 years from turnover.” The Statute of Repose in Florida is “10 years from the date the building received its original Certificate of Occupancy.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Harlem Developers Reach Deal with Attorney General

    February 25, 2014 —
    Joseph Scarpinito and Shiraz Sanjana, developers of the Mirada condominium in Harlem, New York can avoid a contempt charge from state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, “if they make the required repairs and obtain a permanent certificate of occupancy at the property,” according to The Real Deal. Scarpinito and Sanjana “agreed to deposit $200,000 into an escrow account and make repairs to stop flooding and other defects at the 161 East 110th Street condo, which are required to obtain a certificate of occupancy from the city Department of Buildings.” Last December, the Attorney General “filed suit against the developers, alleging they submitted false filings to his office in claiming that Scarpinito’s 83-year-old mother was the actual developer of the 68-unit condo.” Furthermore, the condo board lawyers submitted a complaint to Schneiderman “detailing extensive defects in the building, including water leaks entering the building from the roof and façade.” The developers have been ordered “to submit weekly reports to the AG’s office detailing progress on the repairs and obtaining the certificate of occupancy.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Appraisal Panel Can Determine Causation of Loss under Ohio Law

    February 19, 2024 —
    The federal district court granted the insured's motion to compel an appraisal that would include a determination of causation of the loss. Eagle Highland Owners Association v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220937 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 12, 2023). Plaintiff argued its property suffered wind and hail damage from a storm on June 18, 2021. A claim was submitted to State Farm. State Farm's investigation determined the loss to be $0.00. Plaintiff's investigator determined the loss to be $586,647.08 in repair costs. State Farm opposed appraisal because, in its view, the damage arose from a loss in 2019, not from the June 18, 2021 storm. Plaintiff submitted a loss claim in 2019 for damage that State Farm alleged was exactly the same as the damage alleged in the loss claim for the June 18, 2021 storm. Therefore, State Farm did not view the matter as a dispute over an amount of loss, but rather over whether a loss even occurred on June 18, 2021. 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

    New York Appellate Court Affirms 1966 Insurance Policy Continues to Cover WTC Asbestos Claims

    January 02, 2019 —
    In a prior post, we discussed a New York trial-court decision that found an insurance policy issued in 1966, to insure the construction of the World Trade Center, continues to cover modern-day asbestos claims, with each claim constituting an individual occurrence. Last week, in American Home Assurance Co. v. The Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J., 7628-7628A (1st Dep’t Nov. 15, 2018), an intermediate appellate court affirmed that decision, agreeing that coverage is triggered for claims tied to alleged asbestos exposure at the WTC site in the 1960s and ’70s. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joshua S. Paster, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    NYC’s Next Hot Neighborhoods Targeted With Property Funds

    August 20, 2014 —
    New York’s real estate world is filled with tales of ordinary people who bought property decades ago and saw values skyrocket to the millions. Seth Weissman is seeking investors to get in early on the next hot neighborhoods. The veteran of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and hedge fund Perry Capital LLC started CityShares, which enables participants to reap rewards from increasing apartment demand in gentrifying areas. Investors who pledge at least $100,000 to one of the program’s neighborhood-focused funds become partial owners of a group of buildings and share in the rental income. The first pool is more than halfway toward its target of $5 million, which will be used to buy properties in Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant. Harlem in upper Manhattan is next, with a goal of as much as $20 million. Additional funds are planned for Bushwick, Crown Heights and Sunset Park, all in Brooklyn. Renters are pushing into those more-distant areas after getting squeezed out of the borough’s waterfront communities, where leasing costs rival Manhattan’s. CityShares is the first program of its kind and offers a way to invest in burgeoning markets that are poised to grow as New York’s workforce expands, Weissman said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan LaMantia, Bloomberg
    Mr. Lamantia may be contacted at jlamantia1@bloomberg.net

    What To Do When the Government is Slow to Decide a Claim?

    October 02, 2015 —
    You may know this situation all too well. You’ve submitted your certified claim to the contracting officer and there it sits. You ask for a decision and they say soon, but it’s not soon. And pretty soon, several months have gone by. Since the Court of Federal Claims’ decision in Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. v. U.S., the government may have to decide in 60 days or your claim will be deemed denied which would allow you to file your claim in the Court of Federal Claims. Background Rudolph and Sletten (R&S) were awarded a contract to construct the La Jolla Laboratory. On August 20, 2013, R&S submitted a certified claim seeking $26,809,003 as compensation for costs due to alleged government-caused delays and disruption, additional consultant costs and extra work. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Tesla Finishes First Solar Roofs—Including Elon's House

    August 02, 2017 —
    First the Model 3 electric car. Now the solar roof. In just one week, Tesla has challenged two distinct industries with radically new products. Tesla has completed its first solar roof installations, the company reported Wednesday as part of a second-quarter earnings report. Just like the first Model 3 customers, who took their keys last week, the first solar roof customers are Tesla employees. By selling to them first, Tesla says it hopes to work out any kinks in the sales and installation process before taking it to a wider public audience. “I have them on my house, JB has them on his house,” Musk said, referring to Tesla’s Chief Technology Officer J.B. Straubel. “This is version one. I think this roof is going to look really knock-out as we just keep iterating.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Randall, Bloomberg