BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut stucco 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


    The Unthinkable Has Happened. How Should Contractors Respond?

    The Importance of the Recent Amendment to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

    Condo Building Hits Highest Share of Canada Market Since 1971

    Tall and Sustainable Is Not an Easy Fix

    Texas Supreme Court Finds Payment of Appraisal Award Does Not Absolve Insurer of Statutory Liability

    New OSHA Regulations on Confined Spaces in Construction

    Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Fair Share Act Does Not Preempt Common Law When Apportioning Liability

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    Construction Industry on the Comeback, But It Won’t Be the Same

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision

    Specific Performance: Equitable Remedy to Enforce Affirmative Obligation

    Insurer Defends Denial in Property Coverage Dispute Involving Marijuana Growing Operations

    Best U.S. Home Sales Since 2007 Show Momentum in Housing Market

    Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer

    Summarizing Changes to NEPA in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (P.L. 118-5)

    Precedent-Setting ‘Green’ Apartments in Kansas City

    New England Construction Defect Law Groups to Combine

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    Subcontractor Allowed to Sue Designer for Negligence: California Courts Chip Away at the Economic Loss Doctrine (Independent Duty Rule)

    Giant Gas Pipeline Owner, Contractor in $900M Payment Battle

    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    The Texas Supreme Court Limits the Use of the Economic Loss Rule

    California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase “Ongoing Operations” In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations

    Foreclosure Deficiency: Construction Loan vs. Home Improvement Loan

    The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

    Ohio Does Not Permit Retroactive Application of Statute of Repose

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (05/11/22)

    No Duty to Indemnify Where No Duty to Defend

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

    New York Court of Appeals Addresses Choice of Law Challenges

    16 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2021 Top Lawyers!

    Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 – Expert Testimony

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action

    The Business of Engineering: An Interview with Matthew Loos

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects

    Detroit Craftsmen Sift House Rubble in Quest for Treasured Wood

    Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

    Documenting Contract Changes in Construction

    UK Construction Output Rises Unexpectedly to Strongest Since May

    Arizona Court of Appeals Awards Attorneys’ Fees in Quiet-Title Action

    WCC and BHA Raised Thousands for Children’s Cancer Research at 25th West Coast Casualty CD Seminar

    Saving Manhattan: Agencies, Consultants, Contractors Join Fight to Keep New York City Above Water

    Housing Starts in U.S. Slumped More Than Forecast in March

    Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds Defendant Has the Burden of Offering Alternative Measure of Damages to Prove that Plaintiff’s Measure of Damages is Unreasonable

    Denial of Claim for Concealment or Fraud Reversed by Sixth Circuit

    New Orleans Is Auctioning Off Vacant Lots Online

    Showdown Over Landmark Housing Law Looms at U.S. Supreme Court
    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

    City of Pawtucket Considering Forensic Investigation of Tower

    October 08, 2014 —
    Pawtucket, Rhode Island’s mayor, Donald Grebien, has asked their city council to approve “a forensic investigation of the Pawtucket City Hall tower to determine whether the city should sue the contractor that repaired it eight years ago,” the Valley Breeze reported. Back in 2011, “city officials had been unable to locate a signed contract for the tower project as they sought to hold NER responsible for continued leaking into the structure just five years after the company's $3 million renovation project was complete,” according to the Valley Breeze. “The costs of that project grew to $4.6 million once interest was factored in.” Documents have recently been discovered that Grebien believes may open the possibility to sue NER. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Spa High-Rise Residents Frustrated by Construction Defects

    February 07, 2013 —
    Is this part of the spa treatment? A couple has sued over problems at Miraval Living, a luxury high-rise on the East Side of Manhattan. There was supposed to be ballroom dancing, culinary classes, and yoga. Anthony Argyrides's lawsuit notes that those didn't materialize. What they did get, he claims, was faulty plumbing, crumbling fixtures, and defective floor tiles. Mr. Argyrides claims that his front door "spontaneously fell of its hinges and nearly hit FiOS installation workers." Meanwhile, building management has ended their agreement with Miraval and need to find someone else to operate the building's spa. Argyrides and his fellow building residents might need something more than a few deep calming breaths. He's suing for $5.5 million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction is the Fastest Growing Industry in California

    May 20, 2015 —
    We wrote earlier about why construction workers are the happiest employees on Earth, and pointed to one possible factor: That construction, which was one of the hardest hit industries during the 2008 real estate collapse, has since bounced back. This past month, the California Employment Development Department (“EDD”) released data putting some numbers to that hypothesis. And the result: According to the EDD, over the past 12 months, construction was the fastest growing industry in California, adding more than 46,000 jobs within the last year, an increase of 6.9% from 667,000 workers in March 2014 to 713,000 workers in March 2015. 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

    Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection

    September 29, 2021 —
    In BMJ Partners LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 20-CV-03870, 2021 WL 3709182 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, with prejudice, a coverage action filed by an insured based on a failure to comply with a request to inspect the involved property under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The loss at issue involved a hail-damaged building in Carpentersville, Illinois. During the discovery phase of the litigation, the property insurer served a request to inspect the subject property under FRCP Rule 34. After ignoring numerous requests to schedule the inspection, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, to compel an inspection. After the motion was filed, a status hearing was conducted where the insured’s counsel advised the Court of his intention to file a motion to withdraw from representation of the insured. After the date set to file the motion to withdraw passed without anything being filed, the Court entered an order directing the insured to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. In response to the order to show cause, the insured advised the Court that instead of responding to the property insurer’s discovery requests, the insured sold the property to a buyer who subsequently tore down the building. In light of what the Court described as the insured’s “flabbergasting admission”, the Court was compelled to grant the motion to dismiss and do so with prejudice. In support of the “extreme sanction” of dismissing the matter with prejudice, the Court first noted that the insured had not come close to justifying a discharge of the pending show-cause order. Rather, the insured’s responsive filing refers to the Court's show cause order only indirectly and does not deny, or offer any justification for, disregarding case-related communications for several months. Even if that were not enough, the Court further held that the insured’s spoliation of evidence likewise provides sufficient basis for dismissal given that Courts have inherent authority to sanction parties for failure to preserve potential evidence. According to the Court, dismissal with prejudice was the only appropriate sanction in light of the insured’s violation of the obligation to preserve the property. Not only did the insured ignore multiple requests from the insurer to inspect, but during the same time frame the insured found time to allow inspections of the building as part of the sale by both the Village of Carpentersville and the property's buyer. 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

    Safety, Compliance and Productivity on the Jobsite

    November 18, 2019 —
    With any project, managing a large contingency of workers—all with varying levels of security clearance—can be a logistical headache. On the majority of construction sites, managers lack the resources to quickly and accurately identify all onsite personnel and ensure the right labor, equipment and materials are in the right place at the right time. Equally important, construction managers need to know if worker certifications are current and only allow access to authorized areas. Multiple factors compound the need for better transparency across the workforce, including:
    • Safety. Construction work is inherently dangerous. In 2017, nearly 1,000 fatalities occurred on construction sites. This means that the industry accounted for more than 20% of private sector fatalities across all industries.
    • Regulatory. The Federal government has a heightened awareness of jobsite dangers and is targeting companies that are not making every effort to maximize the workers’ safety.
    • Security. Sites in urban environments require round-the-clock protection from urban explorers, thieves and the general public.
    • Employee wage disputes. Lawsuits and disputes over wages and hourly employment are increasing.
    • Reduced productivity. It can be difficult to measure and track productivity in construction.
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Ramage, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Unravel the Facts Before Asserting FDUTPA and Tortious Interference Claims

    September 05, 2022 —
    CMR Construction and Roofing, LLC v. UCMS, LLC, 2022 WL 3012298 (11th Cir. 2022) is an interesting opinion where a contractor asserted a Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (known by its acronym “FDUTPA”) claim and tortious interference claims (with a contract and with an advantageous business relationship) against another contractor, i.e., a competitor, that were dismissed from the get-go. It is an opinion worthy of interest based on the claims asserted against a competitor. Throwing around FDUTPA and tortious interference may sound good from an intimidation standpoint, but pleading and then proving these claims are a lot different than loosely throwing around these claims. Before filing a lawsuit for FDUTPA and tortious interference, spend time unraveling the facts and the chronology. Do not rely on conclusory allegations simply to check the box regarding required elements to plead while ignoring the actual facts that support the allegations. These are fact-based claims and it is imperative the facts are fully known from on the onset so that they can be strategically pled and pursued. In this matter, a contractor, the plaintiff, was hired by a condominium association around April 2018 to repair damage caused by a hurricane which included roofing work. The association was going to have its insurer pay its contractor. In May 2020, the association hired a new contractor to perform the same work (the “new contractor”). The association then directed the plaintiff to cease work since it hired the new contractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Florida “get to” costs do not constitute damages because of “property damage”

    August 11, 2011 —

    In Palm Beach Grading, Inc. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., No. 10-12821 (11th Cir. July 14, 2011), claimant general contractor Palm Beach Grading (?PBG?) subcontracted with insured A-1 for construction of a sewer line for the project.   A-1 abandoned its work and PBG hired another subcontractor to complete construction of the sewer line.   The new subcontractor discovered that A-1?s work was defective requiring repair and replacement of portions of the sewer line which also required the destruction and replacement of surrounding work.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

    2019’s Biggest Labor and Employment Moves Affecting Construction

    January 27, 2020 —
    The construction industry is fueled by change, which is the only constant in life and construction. Still, continuous change makes compliance with state and federal laws and regulations more difficult. While contractors may thrive on the frantic pace, sometimes it is good to look back and ensure they have an understanding of, and are complying with, the newest regulations and laws. Top 10 Stories Dominating Employment Law in Construction 1. Trio of Federal Joint Employment Rules Expected in December 2019 Joint employment took center stage during the November 20, 2019 release of the Fall Regulatory Agenda, as three separate federal agencies announced plans to move forward with revised joint employment rules in December. While the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board had already released versions of their draft rules, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also announced that it would weigh in on the topic before the end of 2019. As of January 10, 2020, the EEOC had not done so. 2. NLRB Tightens Union Access to Employer Property In a ruling that levels the labor relations playing field, the NLRB ruled that employers could rightfully eject outside union representatives soliciting petition signatures from a shared shopping center parking area. When read in conjunction with an earlier 2019 decision conferring greater rights to limit on-premises union activity by abolishing the “public space” exception, the NLRB has significantly restricted union access to private employer property. Reprinted courtesy of Micah Dawson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Dawson may be contacted at mdawson@fisherphillips.com