BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield 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


    Wes Payne Receives Defense Attorney of the Year Award

    Implied Warranty Claims–Not Just a Seller’s Risk: Builders Beware!

    Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Claim

    Virtual Reality for Construction

    2018 California Construction Law Update

    Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Is Still in Trouble, Two Major Reviews Say

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

    Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

    Risk Management and Contracting after Hurricane Irma: Suggestions to Avoid a Second Disaster

    San Francisco Sues Over Sinking Millennium Tower

    New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    Bill Proposes First-Ever Federal Workforce Housing Tax Credit for Middle-Class Housing

    Concrete Worker Wins Lawsuit and Settles with Other Defendant

    Brookfield Wins Disputed Bid to Manage Manhattan Marina

    Jason Poore Receives 2018 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award

    Earth Movement Exclusion Precludes Coverage

    Building Down in November, Even While Home Sales Rise

    9 Basic Strategies for Pursuing Coverage for Construction Accident Claims

    SFAA Commends Congress for Maintaining Current Bonding Protection Levels in National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    United States Supreme Court Limits Class Arbitration

    The Comcast Project is Not Likely to Be Shut Down Too Long

    Hunton’s Alice Weeks Selected to the Miami Dade Bar’s Circle of Excellence for Insurance Litigation

    OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS Unveiled

    Buildings Don't Have To Be Bird-Killers

    Is Modular Construction Destined to Fail?

    Unjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding Contract

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

    No Coverage for Collapse of Building

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”

    California’s Right To Repair Act Is The Sole Remedy For Damages For Construction Defects In New Residential Construction

    HHMR is pleased to announce that David McLain has been selected as a 2020 Super Lawyer

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!

    National Engineering and Public Works Roadshow Highlights Low Battery Seawall Restoration Project in Charleston

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    Florida Court of Appeals Rejects Insurer’s Attempt to Intervene in Underlying Lawsuit to Submit Special Interrogatories

    NTSB Sheds Light on Fatal Baltimore Work Zone Crash

    The Court-Side Seat: FERC Reviews, Panda Power Plaints and Sovereign Immunity

    Denial of Coverage for Bulge in Wall Upheld

    SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    Application Of Two Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-For-Delay And Liquidated Damages

    West Virginia Couple Claim Defects in Manufactured Home

    Responding to Ransomware Learning from Colonial Pipeline

    U.S. Architecture Firms’ Billing Index Faster in Dec.

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    Judge Sentences Roofing Contractor Owner in Florida PPP Fraud Case
    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

    Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied

    December 02, 2015 —
    The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the insured was only entitled to the actual cost value of his loss, not the replacement cost. Lytle v. Country Mutual Ins. Co., 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 756 (Sept. 30, 2015). The insured's home was built around 1903. On June 21, 2011, the insured discovered damage to his home because of a severe storm. He made a claim with his insurer, Country Mutual. The policy contained a depreciation holdback provision. The provision said the insurer would not pay more than the actual cash value until the actual repair or replacement was complete. If the insured elected to accept actual cash value, he would have one year from the date of the loss to repair or replace the damaged property and request the difference between the actual cash value and the replacement cost. 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

    U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

    June 11, 2014 —
    On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-awaited decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. 12-1200, in which the court confirmed that the power of the nation’s bankruptcy courts to hear and decide cases involving state-created private rights in which the bankruptcy proof of claim process has not been directly invoked, is severely limited by Article III of the Constitution of the United States. The decision in Executive Benefits, while providing some clarity to practitioners and the public following the Court’s June 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), nevertheless will make a substantial portion of bankruptcy litigation matters more cumbersome and potentially more expensive to guide through the bankruptcy system. Clients and practitioners are best advised to hire knowledgeable counsel to help navigate the more complex procedural waters created by this decision. Although the Court in Executive Benefits did resolve a pending procedural question that had dogged practitioners since Stern was decided in 2011, the Court’s decision in Executive Benefits now makes it abundantly clear that many disputes that were previously heard and decided in the nation’s bankruptcy courts can no longer be decided there and must be submitted to the district courts for full de novo review and entry of a final judgment or order. It is difficult to see how this decision will not make bankruptcy litigation more cumbersome and expensive by adding an additional layer of judicial involvement to many matters, notably to fraudulent transfer and other avoidance “claw back” actions that historically have been decided in the bankruptcy courts and used famously in Madoff and other cases as an efficient device for creating value for creditors. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Earl Forte, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Forte may be contacted at fortee@whiteandwilliams.com

    President Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Requires a Viable Statutory Framework (PPP Statutes)[i]

    April 13, 2017 —
    Although we live in a politically-divided nation, there is one issue on which there seems widespread agreement: our country requires a massive upgrade to its infrastructure. Rundown airports, crumbling highways, obsolete ports, and dangerous bridges are now endemic across the United States. By contrast, Asian airports and elegant European bridges and rails show that our country needs an upgrade, the cost of which will be enormous. President Trump promised to revitalize America’s aging roads, bridges, railways, and airports. He chose Wilbur Ross for Commerce Secretary and professor of Conservative Economics and Public Policy, Peter Navarro, to formulate an infrastructure plan. Navarro and Ross recommended that the government allocate $137 billion in tax credits for private investors who underwrite infrastructure projects. They estimate that over the next ten years, the credits could spur $1 trillion in investments. That is how much President Trump promised to spend on infrastructure, a key part of his job-creation plan. His plan involves building the infrastructure with private-money financing. Public Private Partnerships (“PPP”) are not a new concept and have been successful in Canada, Europe, and various U.S. states who have pioneered this method of procurement. Federal tax credits have been used to spur private investment in housing, resulting in tens of thousands of low-income housing developments over the years. The credits are sold to private entities such as banks and equity firms that invest anywhere from $.70 to $1.10 in housing developments for every dollar they receive in credits, a ratio that fluctuates with economic conditions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

    Flood Sublimit Applies, Seawater Corrosion to Amtrak's Equipment Not Ensuing Loss

    November 10, 2016 —
    The insurers were granted summary judgment on three issues regarding Amtrak's claim for damages caused by Hurricane Sandy. Amtrak v. Aspen Sec. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16074 (2nd Cir. Aug. 31, 2016). Hurricane Sandy caused flooding which damaged two of Amtrak's tunnels under the East and Hudson Rivers. Seawater from the flooding caused extensive damage to equipment in the tunnels. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurers on the following issues: (1) the damage caused by an inundation of water in the tunnels was subject to the policies' $125 million flood sublimit; and (2) the corrosion of equipment after Amtrak pumped out the seawater was not an "ensuing loss" and therefore was also subject to the flood sublimit. 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

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    February 10, 2012 —

    The Hartford Courant reports that Connecticut is trying a very old tactic in a construction defect suit. The law library building at the University of Connecticut suffered from leaks which have now been repaired. The state waited twelve years after was complete to file lawsuit, despite that Connecticut has a six-year statute of limitations on construction defect claims. Connecticut claims that the statute of limitations does apply to the state.

    The state is arguing that a legal principle from the thirteenth century allows it to go along with its suit. As befits a medieval part of common law, the principle is called “nullum tempus occurrit regi,” or “time does not run against the king.” In 1874, the American Law Register said that nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae “has been adopted in every one of the United States” and “is now firmly established law.”

    In the case of Connecticut, Connecticut Solicitor General Gregory D’Auria said that “the statute of limitations does not apply to the state.” He also noted that “the state did not ‘wait’ to file the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed only after all other options and remedies were exhausted.”

    Connecticut also argued that “nullus tempus occurrit regi” applied in another construction defect case at the York Correctional Institution. The judge in that case ruled in December 2008 to let the case proceed. But in the library case, Judge William T. Cremins ruled in February 2009 that the statute of limitations should apply to the state as well. Both cases have been appealed, with the library case moving more quickly toward the Connecticut Supreme Court.

    Read the full story…

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

    Client Alert: Restaurant Owed Duty of Care to Driver Killed by Third-Party on Street Adjacent to Restaurant Parking Lot

    January 07, 2015 —
    In Annocki v. Peterson Enterprise, LLC, (Filed 11/14/2014, Certified for Publication 12/5/2014, No. B251434) the Court of Appeal, Second District, held a restaurant owed a duty of care to the driver of a motorcycle who died as a result of the negligent driving of a third party exiting the restaurant’s parking lot. Decedent, Joseph M. Annocki, was driving his motorcycle on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, when it collided with the vehicle operated by Terry Allen Turner, who was exiting the parking lot of “Geoffrey’s" restaurant, which was owned and operated by the Defendant, Peterson Enterprise, LLC (“Peterson”). The parents of the decedent (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Peterson, alleging Peterson failed to adequately staff the restaurant parking lot, which caused Turner to become confused and make an illegal left turn onto Pacific Coast Highway, thereby causing the accident that killed decedent. Plaintiffs further alleged Peterson knew, or should have known, that its parking lot and driveway were designed and in such condition as to create a danger of decreased visibility of the adjacent highway, and failed to adequately provide signage directing patrons that only right turns could be made onto Pacific Coast Highway. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Kristian B. Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contract Disruptions: Navigating Supply Constraints and Labor Shortages

    January 24, 2022 —
    The biggest worries in today’s economy—supply chain disruptions, labor shortages and the worst inflation in decades—are creating big headaches in the construction industry. What’s worse, large projects underway are often based on contracts hammered out pre-pandemic, before the uncertainties and disruptions that spread around the globe with COVID-19. Construction firms find themselves executing on contracts signed when the potential for delayed timelines and rising costs seemed more remote. A recent report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce finds almost all contractors (93%) say they are experiencing a shortage of an important product such as steel, lumber or copper. A rising number of companies on commercial projects (54%) also cite difficulty finding skilled workers. Grant Thornton clients, among them some of the country’s biggest construction companies, report that sourcing materials and hiring workers is a bigger challenge today—and more expensive—than at any other time in recent decades. Reprinted courtesy of Greg Ross and Tim Lynch, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Subrogation 101 (and Why Should I Care?)

    July 16, 2023 —
    What is subrogation? Why am I being asked to waive it? Should I care? To answer that last question, let’s take a quick run at the first two. What Is Subrogation? “Subrogation” refers to the act of one person or party standing in the place of another person or party. It is a legal right held by most insurance carriers to pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss in order to recover the amount the insurance carrier paid the insured to cover the loss. This occurs when (i) the insurance carrier makes a payment on behalf of its insured as the result of a covered accident or injury, and then (ii) the insurer then seeks repayment from the at-fault party. Reprinted courtesy of Clark Thiel, Pillsbury and Alexis N. Wansac, Pillsbury Mr. Thiel may be contacted at clark.thiel@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Wansac may be contacted at alexis.wansac@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of