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


    It Ain’t Over Till it’s Over. Why Project Completion in California Isn’t as Straightforward as You Think

    Construction Defect or Just Punch List?

    Facebook Posts “Not Relevant” Rules Florida Appeals Court

    Construction Defect Bill Removed from Committee Calendar

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

    Disputes Will Not Be Subject to Arbitration Provision If There Is No “Significant Relationship”

    Ahlers, Cressman & Sleight PLLC Ranked Top Washington Law Firm By Construction Executive

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/03/21)

    Subsidence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Landslide

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Wins Summary Judgment on Behalf of Contract Utility Company in Personal Injury Action

    Soldiers Turn Brickies as U.K. Homebuilders Seek Workers

    Industry Practices Questioned After Girder Fractures at Salesforce Transit Center

    PA Supreme Court to Rule on Scope of Judges' Credibility Determinations

    Did Deutsche Make a Deal with the Wrong Homeowner?

    If You Can’t Dazzle Em’ With Brilliance, Baffle Em’ With BS: Apprentices on Public Works Projects

    Before Celebrating the Market Rebound, Builders Need to Read the Fine Print: New Changes in Construction Law Coming Out of the Recession

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/11/23) – Millennials Struggle Finding Homes, Additional CHIPS Act Funding Available, and the Supreme Court Takes up Hotel Lawsuit Case

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

    Insureds' Experts Insufficient to Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    Haight Celebrates 2024 New Partner Promotions!

    Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

    Viewpoint: A New Approach to Job Site Safety Reaps Benefits

    Wood Wizardry in Oregon: Innovation Raises the Roof for PDX Terminal

    It’s Time to Include PFAS in Every Property Related Release

    OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS Unveiled

    Traub Lieberman Partner Rina Clemens Selected as a 2023 Florida Super Lawyers® Rising Star

    Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers

    Killer Subcontract Provisions

    What to do about California’s Defect-Ridden Board of Equalization Building

    You May Be Able to Dodge a Bullet, But Not a Gatling Gun

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP Attorneys to Speak at the 2016 National Construction Claims Conference

    When Is a Project Delay Material and Actionable?

    “To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

    Illusory Insurance Coverage: Real or Unreal?

    Haight Welcomes Robert S. Rucci

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Nebraska Court of Appeals Vacates Arbitration Award for Misconduct

    ABC Chapter President Comments on Miami Condo Collapse

    Women Make Their Mark on Construction Leadership

    Chinese Millionaire Roils Brokers Over Shrinking Mansion

    Why Is It So Hard to Kill This Freeway?

    Recommendations and Drafting Considerations for Construction Contingency Clauses Part III

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

    Standard Lifetime Shingle Warranties Aren’t Forever

    In a Win for Property Owners California Court Expands and Clarifies Privette Doctrine

    Commentary: How to Limit COVID-19 Related Legal Claims

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

    Why Do Construction Companies Fail?

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster

    February 06, 2023 —
    In the beautiful coastline region along the famous Pacific Coast Highway between Ventura and Santa Barbara rests the small cottage town of La Conchita. With unobstructed ocean views, this community is only 820 feet wide on a narrow strip of land abutting a 590 feet high cliffside bluff. The bluff has a slope of approximately 35 degrees and consists of poorly cemented marine sediments. This is the perfect recipe for constant disaster from a geological perspective and the site of several major landslides that have devastated this community. Geologic evidence indicates that landslides, which are part of the larger Rincon Mountain slides, have been occurring at and near La Conchita for many thousands of years up to the present with reported landslides beginning as early as 1865. In both 1889 and 1909, the Southern Pacific Rail Line running along the coast was inundated. In the 1909 slide, a train was buried. Since that time, other slides have occurred, covering at times cultivated land, roadways, and the community itself. The two most devastating landslides occurred in 1995 and 2005. 1995 Landslide From October 1994-March 1995, there was double the amount of seasonal rainfall for the area – in excess of 30 inches. The slide occurred on March 3, 1995, when surface cracks in the upper part of the slope opened on the hillside, and surface runoff was infiltrating into the subsurface. The heavy rains essentially saturated the slope causing a massive slide. On March 4, 1995, the hill behind La Conchita failed, moving tens of meters in minutes, and buried nine homes with no loss of life. The County of Ventura immediately declared the whole community a Geological Hazard Area, imposing building restrictions on the community to restrict new construction. On March 10, 1995, a subsequent debris flow from a canyon to the northwest damaged five additional houses in the northwestern part of La Conchita. In total, the slide measured approximately 390 feet wide, 1080 feet long and 98 feet deep. The deposit covered approximately 9.9 acres, and the volume was estimated to be approximately 1.7 million cubic yards of sediment. The devastation was immeasurable and the damage to homes, property and infrastructure was in the millions of dollars to repair. Litigation quickly arose following the 1995 slide with seventy-one homeowners suing the La Conchita Ranch Co. in Bateman v. La Conchita Ranch Co. The judge ruled that irrigation was not the major cause of the slide and that the ranch owners were not responsible. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Daniel Feld, Kahana Feld
    Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com

    Feds Move To Indict NY Contractor Execs, Developer, Ex-Cuomo Aide

    November 30, 2016 —
    Executives at Buffalo, N.Y.-based contractor LPCiminelli and developer COR Development, Syracuse, N.Y., were indicted Nov. 22 on charges of bribery, corruption and fraud in the award of hundreds of millions of dollars in construction contracts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Changes to Va. Code Section 43-13: Another Arrow in a Subcontractor’s Quiver

    November 02, 2020 —
    As is always the case here in Virginia, our General Assembly has made some legislative changes that affect construction contracting. One of these changes is an amendment to Va. Code 43-13 found in the mechanic’s lien section of the Virginia Code. This section of the code has always required that any money paid to a contractor must first go toward paying its subcontractors, suppliers and laborers prior to being used for any other purpose. Prior to 2020, the only remedy for violaiton of Va. Code 43-13 was to go to the local Commonwealth’s Attorney and request a prosecution of the wrongdoer. For various reasons, including that such action did not get the subcontractor or supplier that remained unpaid under this section paid, this remedy was not often pursued except in the most egrigious cases. A key change in the statute occurred during the 2020 legislative session states as follows:
    Any breach or violation of this section may give rise to a civil cause of action for a party in contract with the general contractor or subcontractor, as appropriate; however, this right does not affect a contractor’s or subcontractor’s right to withhold payment for failure to properly perform labor or furnish materials on the project. Any contract or subcontract provision that allows a contracting party to withhold funds due under one contract or subcontract for alleged claims or damages due on another contract or subcontract is void as against public policy.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

    November 15, 2021 —
    On Oct. 28, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court in Zurich American Insurance Company v.. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 66, held that an insured can rely on extrinsic facts to show that an insurer has a duty to defend the insured, as long as the facts were available to the insurer at the time the insured tendered the claim. The court also held that an insured has the burden of proving that an exception to an exclusion in an insurance policy applies to create a duty to defend. In Zurich, Ironshore refused to defend to its insured against multiple property damage claims arising out of construction defects, claiming that its policies’ continuing and progressive damage exclusions barred coverage. The underlying lawsuits made no specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred. Ironshore claimed that the property damage had occurred due to faulty work that predated the commencement of its policies. Two different federal trial courts came to conflicting conclusions in the underlying cases. One held that Ironshore had a duty to defend because Ironshore failed to show that an exception to the exclusion did not apply. The second granted summary judgment in favor of Ironshore holding that the insured failed to meet its burden of proving that an exception to the exclusion applied. Reprinted courtesy of Sarah J. Odia, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Ms. Odia may be contacted at sjo@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Minnesota Addresses How Its Construction Statute of Repose Applies to Condominiums

    April 27, 2020 —
    Courts often struggle with the question of when the statute of repose starts to run for construction projects that involve multiple buildings or phases. In Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls Ass’n v. Housing Partners III-Lofts, LLC, 937 N.W.2d 430 (Minn. 2020) (Village Lofts), the Supreme Court of Minnesota addressed how Minnesota’s 10-year statute of repose, Minn. Stat. § 541.051, applies to claims arising from the construction of a condominium complex. The court held that the statute of repose begins to run at different times for: a) statutory residential warranty claims brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 327A.01 to 327A.08, et. seq.; and b) common law claims arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of the condominium buildings. As stated in Village Lofts, Housing Partners III-Lofts, LLC (Housing Partners) developed the Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls, a condominium complex consisting of Building A and Building B. Housing Partners retained Kraus-Anderson Construction Company (Kraus-Anderson) as the general contractor for Building A. Kraus-Anderson retained Elness Sweeney Graham Architects, Inc. (ESG), Doody Mechanical, Inc. (Doody) and Kenneth S. Kendle, P.E. (Kendle) to work on Building A. In September 2002, the City of Minneapolis (City) issued a partial certificate of occupancy (CO) for Building A, including the building’s public spaces. On October 4, 2002, Housing Partners filed the declaration creating the Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls condominium, to be operated by Village Lofts at St. Anthony Association (Village Lofts Association). On October 10, 2002, Housing Partners sold the first unit in Building A and in November of 2003, the City issued a CO for the entire building, excluding two units. 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

    Policing Those Subcontractors: It Might Take Extra Effort To Be An Additional Insured

    June 14, 2011 —

    I just came across a case that I think truly paints the insurance dilemma for contractors. Thanks to this recent Illinois case, I don’t have to make up any factual scenarios—so kudos to Attorney Robert Boylan for posting it.

    In reading over my RSS feeds this weekend, I noticed a great writeup on long-time blogger Josh Glazov’s Construction Law Today. Attorney Robert Boylan’s post describes a recent Illinois case where a general contractor was denied its additional insured status on a second-tier subcontractor’s insurance. The reason for the denial: the general contractor failed to procure an agreement in writing with the second-tier subcontractor, requiring it to be listed as an additional insured.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Playing Hot Potato: Indemnity Strikes Again

    September 17, 2015 —
    Indemnity can be like playing hot potato (for those of you closer to the Minecraft generation, in the game of hot potato, a metaphoric “hot potato” is tossed between (ahem amongst) players while music is playing, and when the music stops, the player holding the hot potato is out. It’s a barrel of monkeys, trust me.). Anyway, like hot potato, with indemnity an owner typically requires its general contractor to indemnify the owner (sometimes the property owner in TI projects and occasionally design professionals) from and against any and all claims arising out of, related to . . . blah, blah, blah . . . the general contractor’s scope of work . A general contractor in turn will usually require indemnity from its subcontractors. And subcontractors will require indemnity from their sub-subcontractors. And down the line it goes with each party pointing their finger at the next party down the proverbial “food chain.” But it doesn’t always happen that way as the next case, American Title Insurance Company v. Spanish Inn, Case No D067137, California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District (August 14, 2015), illustrates. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Zombie Foreclosures Plaguing Various Cities in the U.S.

    July 16, 2014 —
    Many homeowners are simply abandoning their homes before banks have completed the foreclosure process, according to USA Today. Banks are not always in a hurry to take ownership of property, and often will wait until they are ready to dispose of it before doing so: “There are two primary things that can factor into their decision," Eric Eckardt, vice president and general manager of Hubzu.com, told the Mail Tribune. "One, they may have a surplus of REO properties they're trying to move off the balance sheet. The second is, costs associated with foreclosure may be greater than the value. At the end of the day, it's really a case-by-case matter.” USA Today reported that “[t]he length of the entire foreclosure process is a major contributor to vacancy rates because homeowners are more likely to give up on their homes the longer they have to wait for a resolution.” These abandoned homes may have a negative impact on sales of neighboring homes, according to the Mail Tribune. Gary Poulos, a retired Harry & David systems engineer, lives next door to a ‘zombie foreclosure,’ and spent a year trying to get maintenance work completed on the neighboring property so that he could be in a position to sell his own. He created a blog about his experience (myneighborchasebank.blogspot.com). Big Builder analyzed May 2014 data from CoreLogic, and identified the five states with the highest foreclosure inventory: New Jersey, Florida, New York, Hawaii, and Maine. While the five states with the lowest foreclosure inventory were Alaska, Nebraska, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Minnesota. Read the full story, USA Today... Read the full story, Big Builder... Read the full story, Mail Tribune... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of