BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut building consultant expert
    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


    Colorado Supreme Court Grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes

    Congratulations to San Diego Partner Johnpaul Salem and Senior Associate Scott Hoy for Obtaining a Complete Defense Verdict!

    Conflict of Interest Accusations may Spark Lawsuit Against City and City Manager

    House Panel Subpoenas VA Documents on Colorado Project

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Promotes Insurance Recovery Lawyer Andrea (Andi) DeField to Partner

    London Penthouse Will Offer Chance to Look Down at Royalty

    Sweat the Small Stuff – Don’t Overlook These Three (3) Clauses When Negotiating Your Construction Contract

    S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

    Hammer & Hand’s Top Ten Predictions for US High Performance Building in 2014

    NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

    AI – A Designer’s Assistant or a Replacement?

    Subcontractor Sued for Alleged Defective Work

    OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard Is in Flux

    Harlem Developers Reach Deal with Attorney General

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

    Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community

    Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

    The Practical Distinction Between Anticipatory Breach and Repudiation and How to Deal with Both on Construction Projects

    Replevin Actions: What You Should Know

    Builder Must Respond To Homeowner’s Notice Of Claim Within 14 Days Even If Construction Defect Claim Is Not Alleged With The “Reasonable Detail”

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Should Not Assert Counterclaims Against the Insured/Subrogor

    Subcontractor Not Estopped from Enforcing Lien Not Listed In Bankruptcy Petition

    Federal District Court Finds Coverage Barred Because of Lack of Allegations of Damage During the Policy Period and Because of Late Notice

    For US Cities in Infrastructure Need, Grant Writers Wanted

    Virginia Tech Has Its Own Construction Boom

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss in Favor of Defendant

    Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers

    OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy: What Employers on Construction Sites Need to Know

    Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages

    Construction Defect Class Action Lawsuit Alleges National Cover-up of Pipe Defects

    Good and Bad News on Construction Employment

    Trump, Infrastructure and the Construction Industry

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    Congratulations to Partner John O’Meara for Being Named as One of America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators for Three Consecutive Years!

    The Job is Substantially Complete, the Subcontract was Never Signed, the Subcontractor Wants to be Paid—Now What?

    Insurer Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Under Unjust Enrichment Theory

    Virginia Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    Contractors and Force Majeure: Contractual Protection from Hurricanes and Severe Weather

    Chicago Aldermen Tell Casino Bidders: This Is a Union Town

    Drastic Rebuild Resurrects Graves' Landmark Portland Building

    Know Your Obligations Under Both the Prime Contract and Subcontract

    BOOK CLUB SERIES: Everything You Want to Know About Construction Arbitration But Were Afraid to Ask

    Toll Brothers Named #1 Home Builder on Fortune Magazine's 2023 World's Most Admired Companies® List

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Triable Issue of Fact Exists as to Insurer’s Obligation to Provide Coverage Under Occurrence Policy

    Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

    Manhattan Luxury Condos Sit on Market While Foreign Buyers Wait
    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

    Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

    February 16, 2017 —
    In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages. In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages. Reprinted courtesy of Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Aurora Joins other Colorado Cities by Adding a Construction Defect Ordinance

    September 03, 2015 —
    According to the Aurora Sentinel, the city council of Aurora, Colorado, approved an ordinance targeted at making it more difficult for homeowners to sue builders over construction defect claims. Similar to other recent Colorado city construction defect measures, “the new rule gives builders the right to repair defects before the litigation is pursued, requires that the majority of home owners in a home owners association – as opposed to just a majority of HOA board members – approve of any lawsuits, and allows builders to offer monetary settlements to homeowners in lieu of repairs.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Architects and Engineers Added to Harmon Towers Lawsuit

    February 12, 2013 —
    Since the beginning of the Harmon Towers construction defect lawsuit, it has been CityCenter making claims against Perini, the property owner against the builder. CityCenter now has a new legal team, and with it apparently a new strategy. The Las Vegas Review Journal reports that papers were filed in court on February 8, adding the architect and the engineer as defendants in the case. According to the filings, the engineering firm Halcrow Yolles should have noticed during inspections that parts of the building’s steel skeleton were improperly installed and should have been repaired. Instead these structures were encased in concrete. CityCenter also contends that there were deficiencies in Halcrow’s blueprints. AAI Architects has been named because its contract made it responsible for Halcrow’s work. Perini has contended that some problems at the building were due to bad plans and therefore not their responsibility. They have claimed that they can fix the building for $20 million, of which $4 million would be due to their actions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Goldman Veteran Said to Buy Mortgages After Big Short

    February 05, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Dan Sparks helped Goldman Sachs Group Inc. profit from its bets against subprime mortgages. Now he’s expanding credit to Americans hurt when those types of loans soured and the housing market collapsed. Sparks’s SG Capital Partners this year began buying home loans made through origination partners across the U.S., with a focus on mortgages without government backing, said two people with knowledge of the business who asked not to be identified because the information is private. Mortgages that don’t qualify for purchase by government agencies include large-balance jumbo loans and those to borrowers with lower credit scores or higher debt. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heather Perlberg, Bloomberg
    Ms. Perlberg may be contacted at hperlberg@bloomberg.net

    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    January 14, 2015 —
    According to the Denver Post, another attempt to change Colorado’s construction defect laws to spur condo development is likely this term. Reform supporters are encouraged by the city of Lakewood’s ordinance, Denver Post reported: “"A patchwork around the state on this issue is not the way to go," Rep. Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, said. "Hopefully, the Lakewood measure will spur the conversation this year." Lakewood’s “measure gives builders a ‘right to repair’ faulty work before facing legal action and requires that a majority of home owners approve legal action before it is taken.” However, “Nancy Stockton, president of the homeowners association at the Vallagio at Inverness in Arapahoe County, said following Lakewood's example statewide would only make it that much harder to hold builders accountable for the quality of their work.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Revel Closing Shows Gambling Is No Sure Thing for Renewal

    September 03, 2014 —
    The Revel Casino Hotel was envisioned as a playground for Wall Streeters who hated flying to Las Vegas. Instead, it’s become a money pit for the banks and money managers who spearheaded the New Jersey project, and the losses will keep coming even after closing today. The Atlantic City resort, built at a cost of $2.4 billion, ceased operations after two bankruptcies and a 10-month search for a buyer. Barring a sale, the new owners may be Wells Fargo & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., which provided $125 million in court-approved funding. Previous backers also included Capital Group Cos., the third-largest manager of U.S. mutual funds, and Morgan Stanley, the original investor. The resort fell prey to poor timing, bad design and a misreading of the local market. The Revel saga shows what can go wrong when bankers stray from what they know, according to Charles Geisst, a professor of finance at Manhattan College in New York and author of the book “Wall Street: A History.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Palmeri, Bloomberg
    Mr. Palmeri may be contacted at cpalmeri1@bloomberg.net

    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

    Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions

    July 21, 2018 —
    It is unfortunate, but in certain matters, a construction lien foreclosure action is not actually driven by the principal amount in dispute. Oh no. Rather, it is driven by attorney’s fees. That’s right. Attorney’s fees. This is true even though Florida applies the significant issues test to determine the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. However, oftentimes the prospect of attorney’s fees is enough for parties to fear that exposure. There is a 1985 Florida Supreme Court case that I like to cite if applicable, C.U. Associates, Inc. v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So.2d 1177, 1179 (Fla. 1985), that finds, “in order to be a prevailing party entitled to the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 [a construction lien claim], a litigant must have recovered an amount exceeding that which was earlier offered in settlement of the claim.” Accord Sullivan v. Galske, 917 So.2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (explaining that although contractor is receiving a judgment in his favor, he may not be the prevailing party if the homeowner offered to settle prior to the lawsuit for an amount equal to or greater than the award in the judgment). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com