BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    A Few Things You Might Consider Doing Instead of Binging on Netflix

    BHA has a Nice Swing Benefits the Wounded Warrior Project

    General Release of Contractor Upheld Despite Knowledge of Construction Defects

    Stop by BHA’s Booth at WCC and Support the Susan G. Komen Foundation

    Colorado Court of Appeals Defines “Substantial Completion” for Subcontractors’ Work so as to Shorten the Period of Time in Which They Can Be Sued

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

    Mechanics Lien Release Bond – What Happens Now? What exactly is a Mechanics Lien and Why Might it Need to be Released?

    Sinking Buildings on the Rise?

    Fargo Shows Record Home Building

    Damage Control: Major Rebuilds After Major Weather Events

    The Godfather of Solar Predicts Its Future

    Is Arbitration Final and Binding?

    PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building Conditions

    Illinois Earns C- on its 2022 Infrastructure Report Card while Making Strides on Roads and Transit

    New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    Three lawyers from Haight were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition

    Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)

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

    First Lumber, Now Drywall as Canada-U.S. Trade Tensions Escalate

    Insured's Collapse Claim Survives Summary Judgment

    Legislation Update: S-865 Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey Passed by Both Houses-Awaiting Governor’s Signature

    Parties to an Agreement to Arbitrate May be Compelled to Arbitrate with Non-Parties

    Gehry-Designed Project Seen Bringing NYC Vibe to L.A.

    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

    How to Survive the Insurance Claim Process Before It Starts –Five Tips to Keep Your Insurance Healthy

    The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation

    California Complex Civil Litigation Superior Court Panels

    Liquidated Damages Clause Not Enforced

    Farewell Capsule Tower, Tokyo’s Oddest Building

    Contract Change #8: Direct Communications between Owners and Contractors (law note)

    Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent

    Court Grants Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment After Insured Fails to Provide Evidence of Systemic Collapse

    Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case

    Port Authority Approves Subsidies for 2 World Trade Project

    Hunton’s Geoffrey Fehling Confirmed to DC Bar Foundation’s Young Lawyers Network Leadership Council

    Defense Owed to Insured Subcontractor, but not to Additional Insured

    Safe and Safer

    Negligence Claim Not Barred by Gist of the Action Doctrine

    U.S. Supreme Court Halts Enforcement of the OSHA Vaccine or Test Mandate

    Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

    US Homes Face Costly Retrofits for Induction Stoves, EV Chargers

    General Contractor Gets Fired [Upon] for Subcontractor’s Failure to Hire Apprentices

    Addenda to Construction Contracts Can Be an Issue

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    Developers Celebrate Arizona’s Opportunity Zones

    Waiver of Subrogation and Lack of Contractual Privity Bars Commercial Tenants’ Claims

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

    Forensic Team Finds Fault with Concrete Slabs in Oroville Dam Failure
    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

    Automating Your Home? There’s an App for That

    April 03, 2013 —
    Writing in the New York Times, Nick Wingfield looks at both the promise and failures of home automation, starting with a timer which had “buttons the size of a small seed” and was too difficult to reset. Wingfield said the timer “made my house dumber.” He moves on to the useful items, such as the Nest thermostat, which improves on his previous programmable thermostat by being able to determine when people are actually home (so an empty house isn’t being heated) and it can be controlled from a smartphone app, useful for the taxi on the way home from the airport. The Belkin WeMo Switch allows users to control lamps from an iOS app and the timer functions can be accessed without having to use seed-sized buttons. For those with bigger home automation budgets, there are now companies setting up whole house systems, including thermostat, light controls, motion detectors, surveillance cameras, and even monitors for your hot water heater and the level of carbon monoxide in your home. These systems start at around $1,500 but quickly go past $5,000. Other packages are sold on a month-by-month basis. And they include apps. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Billionaire Row Condo Board Sues Developers Over 1,500 Building Defects

    September 29, 2021 —
    The condo board at one of New York’s tallest and toniest towers sued the building’s developers, claiming design flaws are to blame for flooding, stuck elevators and “horrible and obtrusive noise and vibration.” The residential tower at 432 Park Avenue is a 1,396-foot skyscraper overlooking Central Park that was opened in 2015 on the city’s so-called Billionaire Row. The condo board claims its engineering consultant has identified more than 1,500 construction and design defects — “many of which are described as life safety issues.” The board that represents the condo owners sued the developers, CIM Group and Macklowe Properties, and the company, also known as sponsor, that the developers formed to build the tower. The board is seeking $250 million, plus punitive damages, in the lawsuit, filed Thursday in New York Supreme Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Burnson, Bloomberg

    Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Recovery Practice, Andrea DeField and Cary D. Steklof, Recognized as Legal Elite

    August 16, 2021 —
    We are proud to share that Hunton Andrews Kurth insurance coverage Partner Andrea (Andi) DeField and Counsel Cary D. Steklof were recently recognized as 2021 Legal Elite Up & Comers in Florida Trend magazine. Florida Trend invited all in-state members of the Florida Bar to name attorneys whom they highly regard or would recommend to others. Only the top 111 attorneys were recognized for their leadership in the legal field and in the community. Andi and Cary are both well deserving of this honor and the award reflects their dedication to providing excellent legal services.Andi finds risk management, risk transfer, and insurance recovery solutions for public and private companies. She represents policyholders in a variety of insurance coverage disputes including those arising out of data breaches, ransomware attacks, construction defect and wrongful death suits, hurricanes, mergers and acquisitions, regulatory investigations, class actions, shareholder derivative suits, and COVID-19. Cary represents individual, corporate and municipal policyholders in all types of first- and third-party insurance coverage and bad faith disputes. With experience in the areas of insurance litigation, insurer bad faith and unfair insurance practices, he concentrates his practice on advising policyholders in connection with director and officer, error and omission, cyber, commercial general liability, and commercial property insurance policies. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Casey L. Coffey, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Ms. Coffey may be contacted at ccoffey@HuntonAK.com

    Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

    February 05, 2015 —
    Pennsylvania has maintained its own peculiar brand of strict products liability law ever since the Supreme Court decided Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.[1] in 1978. Maligned by many as “absurd and unworkable,”[2] if “excessively” orientated towards plaintiffs,[3] Azzarello’s unique approach to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)[4] has recently been judicially consigned to the dustbin of history. In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.,[5] decided on November 19, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court expressly overruled Azzarello leaving in its place a new alternative standards approach to proving a Section 402A claim. An injured worker or subrogated insurer[6] must still prove that the seller, whether a manufacturer or a distributor, placed the product on the market in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer.”[7] But now, under Tincher, a plaintiff must use either a “consumer expectation test” or a “risk-utility test” to establish that criterion.[8] Reprinted courtesy of Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP and Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

    January 28, 2019 —
    A recent Georgia Court of Appeals case demonstrates the risk of joint ventures failing to carefully define accounting rules in their joint venture agreement. Two trade contractors teamed up to accomplish certain tasks on a job at a wastewater lift station at Fort Gordon. A joint venture agreement provided for an equal split of the profits and losses. Unfortunately, the parties did not define “profit,” and particularly did not define what cost would be deducted in calculating profit. They disputed in particular whether certain large payments to individuals and 15% overhead charges should be deducted in calculating profits. One party presented the expert testimony of an accountant while the other did not. The party presenting expert testimony asked the court to dismiss the other party’s claim because it was not supported by expert testimony of an accountant. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the claim. 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

    Combating Climate Change by Reducing Embodied Energy in the Built Environment

    December 02, 2019 —
    The building and construction industry is a significant consumer of non-renewable energy resources and is contributing to changing the earth’s environment in damaging and irreversible ways. These impacts are being felt in climate-related shifts that include increases in the earth’s average temperature and rising sea levels. A new report by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that 2018 was the fourth-hottest year since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable global temperature data is available. The three hottest years on record were 2015, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, the rise in sea levels is causing “nuisance floods” to become more common. From the 1950s to the early 2000s, the days of flooding in the 27 most vulnerable cities across the United States grew from two per year to nearly 12. These and other environmental impacts underscore the urgency of battling climate change and how critical it is for all industries—including construction—to stem the tide on this issue. Reducing embodied energy in the built environment is one way the building and construction sector can do its part to address one of the major challenges of this century. Reprinted courtesy of Brent Trenga, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Trenga may be contacted at brent.trenga@kingspan.com

    Wisconsin Federal Court Addresses Scope Of Appraisal Provision In Rental Dwelling Policy

    September 05, 2022 —
    In Higgins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 22-C-198, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117477 (E.D. Wis. July 5, 2022), the Court addressed the often disputed question of whether an appraisal provision in an insurance policy is limited to disputes over valuation or extends beyond valuation to causation and/or coverage. The underlying loss in the Higgins case involved a fire at a rental dwelling owned by the Plaintiff and insured by State Farm under a Rental Dwelling policy for, among other things, fire losses. Subsequent to being notified of the fire, State Farm investigated and provided the Plaintiff with its estimated cost of repair. Plaintiff disputed the estimate, including the repairs necessary, and also sought additional sums for debris removal and lost rent. The insurance policy at issue in Higgins included an appraisal provision which provided: “If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either one can demand that the amount of the loss be set by appraisal.” Pursuant to this provision, Plaintiff demanded that State Farm submit to an appraisal to resolve the parties' disagreements. State Farm responded by indicating that it would enter into appraisal over the areas where there were "pricing differences" but not areas where there were "scope differences." According to State Farm, there were a number of issues regarding the scope of repairs necessary to restore the dwelling to its pre-loss condition. Plaintiff disagreed with State Farm's position and did not seek to move forward with the appraisal process on only the items State Farm identified as appropriate for appraisal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    April 28, 2014 —
    In conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”). In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of