BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut eifs 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


    Construction Legislation Likely to Take Effect July 1, 2020

    U.K. High Court COVID-19 Victory for Policyholders May Set a Trend in the U.S.

    Home Prices in U.S. Rose 0.3% in August From July, FHFA Says

    A Few Green Building Notes

    Res Judicata Not Apply to Bar Overlapping Damages in Separate Suits Against Contractor and Subcontractor

    Rio Olympic Infrastructure Costs of $2.3 Billion Are Set to Rise

    A New Lawsuit Might Change the Real Estate Industry Forever

    Why Federal and State Agencies are Considering Converting from a “Gallons Consumed” to a “Road Usage” Tax – And What are the Risks to the Consumer?

    Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

    Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800

    Everybody Is Going to End Up Paying for Texas' Climate Crisis

    Ready, Fire, Aim: The Importance of Targeting Your Delay Notices

    Hanover, Germany Apple Store Delayed by Construction Defects

    Defense Owed to Directors and Officers Despite Insured vs. Insured Exclusion

    Requesting an Allocation Between Covered and Non-Covered Damages? [Do] Think Twice, It’s [Not Always] All Right.

    Insurer Not Responsible for Insured's Assignment of Policy Benefits

    Inspectors Hurry to Make Sure Welds Are Right before Bay Bridge Opening

    No Duty to Defend Under Pollution Policy

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

    Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess

    Bremer Whyte Sets New Precedent in Palos Verdes Landslide Litigation

    Newport Beach Partners Jeremy Johnson, Courtney Serrato, and Associate Joseph Real Prevailed on a Demurrer in a Highly Publicized Shooting Case!

    DIR Public Works Registration System Down, Public Works Contractors Not to be Penalized

    How Do You Get to the Five Year Mark? Some Practical Advice

    Revised Cause Identified for London's Wobbling Millennium Bridge After Two Decades

    A Court-Side Seat: “Inholdings” Upheld, a Pecos Bill Come Due and Agency Actions Abound

    Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

    Unjust Enrichment and Express Contract Don’t Mix

    Understanding the Real Estate and Tax Implications of Florida's Buyer Ban Law

    Important Environmental Insurance Ruling Issued In Protracted Insurance-Coverage Dispute

    Biden's Next 100 Days: Major Impacts Expected for the Construction Industry

    Insureds Survive Summary Judgment on Coverage for Hurricane Loss

    Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim

    District Court Allows DBE False Claims Act Case to Proceed

    White and Williams Elects Four Lawyers to Partnership, Promotes Six Associates to Counsel

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Builder’s Risk Indeed”

    What to Know Before Building a Guesthouse

    Ninth Circuit Court Weighs In On Insurance Coverage For COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    Fla. Researchers Probe 'Mother of All Sinkholes'

    Cold Stress Safety and Protection

    Fourth Circuit Finds Insurer Reservation of Rights Letters Inadequate to Preserve Coverage Defenses Under South Carolina Law

    Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Property Damage Caused By Construction Next Door Covered as Ensuing Loss

    In Hong Kong, You Can Find a Home Where the Buffalo Roam

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Inverse Condemnation Action

    New England Construction Defect Law Groups to Combine

    CalOSHA Updates its FAQ on its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Regulations

    Lay Testimony Sufficient to Prove Diminution in Value

    Monitoring Building Moisture with RFID – Interview with Jarmo Tuppurainen

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2024 “Atlanta 500” List
    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

    Blackstone Said to Sell Boston Buildings for $2.1 Billion

    May 21, 2014 —
    Blackstone Group LP (BX) agreed to sell five office properties in Boston to a venture led by Toronto-based Oxford Properties Group for about $2.1 billion, according to two people with knowledge of the transaction. The buildings total almost 3.3 million square feet (306,000 square meters) and are mostly in downtown Boston, said the people, who asked not to be named because the sale is private. The sale is Blackstone’s largest of U.S. office properties since the real estate market crash. Oxford plans to purchase 100 High St. and 125 Summer St., and team with JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)’s asset-management unit to buy three other properties: 60 State St., 225 Franklin St. and One Memorial Drive in nearby Cambridge, the people said. Blackstone also is selling its roughly half-stake in Boston’s Rowes Wharf to part-owner Morgan Stanley (MS) for about $200 million, according to one of the people. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hui-yong Yu, Bloomberg
    Hui-yong Yu may be contacted at hyu@bloomberg.net

    Hudson River PCB Cleanup Lands Back in Court

    September 03, 2019 —
    As it previously had warned, New York state on Aug. 21 filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency seeking to reverse its certification that General Electric Co.'s removal of PCBs from the Hudson River was complete, despite the agency’s five-year review finding that the cleanup was not adequate to protect human health and the environment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    New Law Impacting Florida’s Statute of Repose

    June 29, 2017 —
    On June 14, 2017, Governor Scott signed House Bill 377 into law, clarifying that Florida’s ten-year Statute of Repose commences either when the work is completed or when final payment becomes due, whichever is latest. The new law resolves a problem for contractors created by a recent Florida court ruling that held the Statute of Repose to commence as late as when the owner made final payment. The applicable amendments to Florida Statute Section 95.11 take effect on July 1, 2017 and apply to all causes of action that accrue on or after that date. Perhaps the most critical component of a construction professional’s risk management program is the length of time that it is liable for the work performed on a project. While contractual warranty periods typically run one or two years from substantial completion, the true length of a contractor’s post-completion obligation is measured by the “Statute of Repose,” which establishes the period of time following the completion of construction that a lawsuit can be filed for construction defects. Reprinted courtesy of Meredith N. Reynolds, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and K. Stefan Chin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Reynolds may be contacted at mreynolds@pecklaw.com Mr. Chin may be contacted at kschin@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fraud, the VCPA and Construction Contracts

    November 26, 2014 —
    I’ve discussed the economic loss rule here at Musings on several occasions. The economic loss rule basically states that where one party assumes a duty based in contract or agreement, the Virginia courts will not allow a claim for breach of that duty to go forward as anything but a contract claim. This doctrine makes fraud claims nearly, though not absolutely, impossible to maintain in a construction context. In a majority of instances, fraud and construction contracts are very much like oil and water, leaving parties to fight it out over the terms of a particular contract despite actions by one party or the other that non-lawyers would clearly see as fraud. However, a recent case decided by the Virginia Supreme Court gives at least some hope to those who are seemingly fooled into entering a contract that they would not other wise have entered into. In Philip Abi-Najm, et. al, v Concord Condominium, LLC, several condominium purchasers sued Concord under for breach of contract, breach of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) and for fraud in the inducement based upon flooring that Concord installed that was far from the quality stated in the purchase contract. Based upon these facts, the Court looked at two questions: 1. Did a statement in the contract between Concord and the condo buyers create a situation in which the merger doctrine barred the breach of contract claim, and 2. Did the economic loss rule bar the VCPA and fraud claims? 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

    Connecticut Court Finds Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Enforceable

    March 19, 2015 —
    Canvassing both case law and scholarly authority, the court determined that the anti-concurrent cause (ACC) provision barred coverage for loss caused by Tropical Storm Irene. Lombardi v. Universal N. Am Ins. Co., 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 138 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 21, 2015). Tropical Storm Irene caused the insured's home to shift and move from its concrete pier foundation. The house later had to be demolished. The insurer's expert concluded that the house was removed from the foundation by storm surge and not by wind. The damage caused by wind was limited to 24 feet of trim missing from the roof and about 70 square feet of shingles that were blown away. The insured's expert concluded the house was removed from its foundation due to a combination of wind and water forces. The insured's expert reported that "the water wave action most probably caused most damage to the dwelling support pilings, with wind conditions contributing to the wave action." 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

    Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct

    August 19, 2015 —
    In Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (filed 8/13/15, Case No. S208130), the California Supreme Court held a government entity is not categorically immune from liability where the plaintiff alleges a dangerous condition of public property caused the plaintiff’s injury, but did not cause the third party conduct which precipitated the accident. The case arises out of a traffic collision by which the negligent driving of a third party motorist caused another car to careen into a tree planted in the center median owned and maintained by the City of Los Angeles (“City”). Of the four occupants in the car that collided with the tree, three died and the fourth was badly injured. The parents of two of the occupants sued the City for a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code Section 835. The plaintiffs alleged the roadway was in a dangerous condition because the trees in the median were too close to the traveling portion of the road, posing an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists who might lose control of their vehicles. The City successfully moved for summary judgment, which plaintiffs appealed. On review, the Court of Appeal affirmed holding the tree was not a dangerous condition as a matter of law because there was no evidence that the tree had contributed to the criminally negligent driving of the third party motorist. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Laura C. Williams and Lawrence S. Zucker II Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com And Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

    October 07, 2019 —
    In PJR Construction of N.J. v. Valley Forge Insurance Company, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D.N.J. July 31, 2019) (PJR Construction), a New Jersey federal court held that the “j.(5)” “Ongoing Operations Exclusion” applied to bar coverage for property damage to property on which a construction company allegedly performed faulty work. The court’s opinion follows prior New Jersey state court precedent, including Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Island Pool & Spa, Inc., 12 A.3d 719 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011) (Island Pool), but also provides additional guidance on the elements which can make the Ongoing Operations Exclusion applicable to exclude coverage. In PJR Construction, a commercial property owner engaged a construction company to build a 26,000 square foot swim club and related 3,000 square foot pavilion building in New Jersey. After about 75% of the work was completed, the property owner fired the construction company and denied it access to the property. The owner later sued the construction company in New Jersey state court alleging “shoddy workmanship” in, among other things, sealants, flashing, water resistant barriers, masonry and the handicap ramps. The construction company sought coverage from its CGL insurer, which denied coverage based on, among other things, the j.(5) Ongoing Operations Exclusion. After the denial of coverage, the company sued the insurer in New Jersey federal court seeking a declaration of coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Georgia State and Local Governments Receive Expanded Authority for Conservation Projects

    May 31, 2021 —
    In the 2020-2021 session, the Georgia General Assembly amended existing laws to expand state and local governments’ authority to enter conservation projects. In connection with these projects, the contractor guarantees that cost savings or revenue increases will cover any payments for the project. Read more about conservation projects, including Guaranteed Energy Savings Performance Contracts With regard to school systems, conservation projects had previously included facility alterations designed to reduce energy or water consumption or operation costs. But the new law expands the permitted projects to include equipment purchases used in new construction or building retrofit, addition, or renovation. It also adds training programs incidental to the contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com