BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness construction
    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


    Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    Exclusion for Construction of Condominiums Includes Faulty Construction of Retaining Wall

    Marlena Ellis Makes The Lawyers of Color Hot List of 2022

    Chimney Collapses at South African Utility’s Unfinished $13 Billion Power Plant

    Insured’s Bad Faith Insurance Claim Evaporates Before its Eyes

    Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment on Conversion Claim Against Insurer

    Is Settling a Bond Claim in the Face of a Seemingly Clear Statute of Limitations Defense Bad Faith?

    New York Condominium Association Files Construction Defect Suit

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Preventing Common Electrical Injuries on the Jobsite

    Late Progress Payments on Local Public Works Projects Are Not a Statutory Breach of Contract

    Developer’s Failure to Plead Amount of Damages in Cross-Complaint Fatal to Direct Action Against Subcontractor’s Insurers Based on Default Judgment

    ‘Hallelujah,’ House Finally Approves $1T Infrastructure Funding Package

    Lis Pendens – Recordation and Dissolution

    So, You Have a Judgment Against a California Contractor or Subcontractor. What Next? How Can I Enforce Payment?

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

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office on Another Successful MSJ!

    Emerging World Needs $1.5 Trillion for Green Buildings, IFC Says

    California Court of Appeal Makes Short Work Trial Court Order Preventing Party From Supplementing Experts

    Ivanhoe Cambridge Plans Toronto Office Towers, Terminal

    Traub Lieberman Chair Emeritus Awarded the 2022 Vince Donohue Award by the International Association of Claim Professionals

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

    Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks: The Spearin Doctrine and Design-Build Projects

    New Jersey Appeals Court Ruled Suits Stand Despite HOA Bypassing Bylaw

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    A Vision and Strategy for the Adoption of Open International Standards

    Million-Dollar Home Sales Thrive While Low End Stumbles

    TxDOT, Flatiron/Dragados Mostly Resolve Bridge Design Dispute

    Contractors Should Be Optimistic that the Best Value Tradeoff Process Will Be Employed by Civilian Agencies

    ISO’s Flood Exclusion Amendments and Hurricane Ian Claims

    CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case

    Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate

    Free Texas MCLE Seminar at BHA Houston June 13th

    Indicted Union Representatives Try Again to Revive Enmons

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant

    Home-Sales Fall in 2014 Has U.S. Waiting for 2015: Economy

    Mediating Contract Claims and Disputes at the ASBCA

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

    Quick Note: October 1, 2023 Changes to Florida’s Construction Statutes

    Dispute Resolution Provision in Subcontract that Says Owner, Architect or Engineer’s Decision Is Final

    Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

    Managing Infrastructure Projects with Infrakit – Interview with Teemu Kivimäki

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Professional Services Exclusion in CGL Policies

    Apartment Investors Turn to Suburbs After Crowding Cities

    Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

    Defining Construction Defects
    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. Leveraging 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

    Forensic Team Finds Fault with Concrete Slabs in Oroville Dam Failure

    September 14, 2017 —
    Weathered and weakened portions of concrete contributed to the Oroville Dam's spillway failing last February, causing panic and mass evacuations in Northern California. This was part of the findings by an Independent Forensic Team (IFT), appointed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Aragon, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

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

    September 06, 2021 —
    "How is this bridge still standing?” That was the initial reaction of Aaron Stover, Michael Baker International’s vice president and regional bridge practice lead, as he first studied images of a fractured tie beam that forced the May 11 emergency shutdown of the I-40/Hernando de Soto Bridge between Tennessee and Arkansas. Discovered by chance earlier in the day during MBI’s routine above-deck inspection, the fracture on the bridge’s eastbound span affected nearly half the cross-section of a 26-in. by 33-in. welded girder supporting one of the 50-year-old structure’s 900-ft-long, 100-ft-high arched navigation spans across the Mississippi River. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Holds That Property Insurance Does Not Cover Economic Loss From Purchasing Counterfeit Vintage Wine

    March 22, 2018 —
    In Doyle v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. (No. G054197, filed 3/7/18), a California appeals court held that financial loss from purchasing counterfeit vintage wine was not direct and accidental loss or damage to covered property within the coverage of a valuable possessions property policy. In Doyle, the insured was a collector of rare, vintage wine that was housed in a wine storage facility. He had purchased nearly $18 million of purportedly rare, vintage wine from a dealer, and insured the collection under a valuable possessions policy. But a law enforcement investigation revealed that the dealer had been filling empty wine bottles with his own wine blend and affixing counterfeit labels. The dealer was convicted of fraud and was sent to prison for 10 years. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Expansion of Potential Liability of Construction Managers and Consultants

    November 18, 2019 —
    Over the last decade or so, there has been far more judicial willingness to adopt legal theories that result in an increased risk of exposure to construction managers and consultants working on construction projects. This has resulted in a greater likelihood of lawsuits being filed that name construction managers and consultants as defendants and a greater likelihood of those lawsuits surviving efforts to have the lawsuits dismissed prior to trial. The consequence of more claims has led to increased costs for legal expenses, settlements and uncompensated personnel time devoted to the defense of the claims. This expansion of potential liability may be broken into two sets:
    1. claims for pure economic loss not arising from property damage or personal injury by parties not in a contractual relationship with a construction manager or consultant; and
    2. claims for property damage or personal injury by a party not in a contractual relationship with a construction manager or consultant.
    The first set concerns claims by a contractor against a construction manager or consultant that its breach of duties owed to the owner on a project and/or its provision of incomplete or inaccurate information on a project, which it knew, or should have reasonably anticipated, would be relied on by the contractor, resulted in damages to the contractor. Reprinted courtesy of Scott D. Cessar, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Cessar may be contacted at scessar@eckertseamans.com

    Owners and Contractors Beware: Pennsylvania (Significantly) Strengthens Contractor Payment Act

    June 13, 2018 —
    Yesterday, Governor Tom Wolf signed into law House Bill 566 which make major changes to Pennsylvania’s Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act. Owners and General Contractors that fail to take head of the changes could face significant financial consequences. The Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, known as CAPSA or simply the Payment Act, was passed into law in 1994. The intent was “to cure abuses within the building industry involving payments due from owners to contractors, contractors to subcontractors, and subcontractors to other subcontractors.” Zimmerman v. Harrisburg Fudd I, L.P., 984 A.2d 497, 500 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). In reality, abuses still occurred. While the Payment Act purportedly dictated a statutory right to payment within a certain amount of time and imposes stiff penalties for failure make payment, including 1% interest per month, 1% penalty per month, and reasonable attorneys fees, the language of the Payment Act left recalcitrant contractors with wiggle room. Particularly, the Payment Act allowed owners and higher tier subcontractors to withhold payment “deficiency items according to the terms of the construction contract” provided it notified the contractor “of the deficiency item within seven calendar days of the date that the invoice is received.” 73 P.S. Section 506. The problem was that the Payment Act did not expressly state where the notice must be in written, what it must say, and what happened if notice was not given. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

    September 17, 2015 —
    The insured's claim for loss based on theft and water leaks was not covered under the property policy. SJP Props. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97216 (E.D. Mo. July 27, 2015). SJP Properties bought and sold foreclosed properties. On July 13, 2006, it purchased at a foreclosure sale a property in St. Louis. The property was not inspected before or after the purchase, and sat vacant for more than two years. No one checked regularly on the property. The property was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Mount Vernon, effective from March 8, 2006 to March 8, 2009. The policy covered vandalism, but excluded loss caused by theft. An exception for the exclusion provided coverage for "building damage caused by the breaking in or exiting of burglars." The policy also excluded loss or damage caused by fungus, wet rot, dry rot and bacteria or water leaks for a period of 14 days or more. 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

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    March 19, 2014 —
    The Tigard-Tualatin School District in Tigard, Oregon filed a lawsuit against Robinson Construction for water damage to the Alberta Rider Elementary school, built in 2005, according to The Oregonian. The school district “is seeking $1.4 million in damages.” According to the suit, as quoted by The Oregonian, the school district “holds Robinson responsible for faulty construction of the school’s panel siding, windows, doors, exterior walls and more.” Repairs began in December of 2011, reported The Oregonian, and the cost so far is more than one million: “The district had to replace parts of the ‘exterior wall cladding system’ and remove and reinstall ‘storefront windows and window/door assemblies to ensure watertight performance,’ in addition to other alterations, the lawsuit reads.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sweet News for Yum Yum Donuts: Lost Goodwill is Not an All or Nothing Proposition

    October 07, 2019 —
    Last month a California Court of Appeals clarified that a property owner facing eminent domain is only required to prove partial loss of goodwill, not total loss of goodwill, to be entitled to a trial on the amount of goodwill lost. Yum Yum Donuts operated a shop in Los Angeles that was subject to eminent domain by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to make way for light railway track. At trial, Yum Yum sought loss of goodwill as part of its condemnation damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.510. At trial the MTA’s expert testified that Yum Yum could have reduced its goodwill loss if it relocated to one of three alternative locations rather than simply closing the shop. But the expert conceded that even if Yum Yum had relocated, it would have lost some goodwill. Yum Yum refused to relocate, arguing that its relocation costs would render the move unprofitable. The trial court found that Yum Yum’s failure to mitigate its damages barred Yum Yum from having a jury trial to recover any goodwill damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Josh Cohen, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jcohen@wendel.com