BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    NEHRP Recommendations Likely To Improve Seismic Design

    A Third of U.S. Homebuyers Are Bidding Sight Unseen

    Updates to Residential Landlord Tenant Law

    Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

    The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion

    Surplus Lines Carriers Cannot Compel Arbitration in Louisiana

    Adobe Opens New Office Tower and Pledges No Companywide Layoffs in 2023

    Critical Updates in Builders Risk Claim Recovery: Staying Ahead of the "Satisfactory State" Argument and Getting the Most Out of LEG 3

    Developer Sues TVA After It Halts Nuke Site Sale

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Decrease on Fewer Investors

    Finalists in San Diego’s Moving Parklet Design Competition Announced

    Roni Most, Esq., Reappointed as a City of Houston Associate Judge

    The Secret to an OSHA Inspection

    Stadium Intended for the 2010 World Cup Still Not Ready

    Policy's One Year Suit Limitation Does Not Apply to Challenging the Insurer's Claims Handling

    California Senator Proposes Bill to Require Contractors to Report Construction Defect Cases

    Crime Lab Beset by Ventilation Issues

    Note on First-Party and Third-Party Spoliation of Evidence Claims

    School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty

    Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

    Were Condos a Bad Idea?

    Certificates Of Merit For NC Lawsuits Against Engineers And Architects? (Still No)(Law Note)

    Courthouse Reporter Series - How to Avoid Having Your COVID-19 Expert Stricken

    Greystone on Remand Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment To Bar Coverage For Construction Defects

    The Law Clinic Paves Way to the Digitalization of Built Environment Processes

    Gru Was Wrong About the Money: Court Concludes that Lender Owes Contractor “Contractually, Factually and Practically”

    Arizona Supreme Court Holds a Credit Bid at a Trustee’s Sale Should Not be Credited to a Title Insurer Under a Standard Lender’s Title Policy To the Extent the Bid Exceeds the Collateral’s Fair Market Value

    Illinois Joins the Pack on Defective Construction as an Occurrence

    Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad

    A Court-Side Seat: A FACA Fight, a Carbon Pledge and Some Venue on the SCOTUS Menu

    Key Economic & Geopolitical Themes To Monitor In 2024

    Could You Be More Specific . . . About My Excess AI Coverage?

    So a Lawsuit Is on the Horizon…

    Concerns Over Unstable Tappan Zee Bridge Push Back Opening of New NY Bridge's Second Span

    New York's Highest Court Says Asbestos Causation Requires Evidence Of Sufficient Exposure To Sustain Liability

    Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

    Court Affirms Summary Adjudication of Bad Faith Claim Where Expert Opinions Raised a Genuine Dispute

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Fires, Hurricanes, Dangerous Heat: The US Is Reeling From a String of Disasters

    Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

    Recycled Water and New Construction. New Standards Being Considered

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

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/31/24) – International Homebuying Shrinks Commercial Real Estate Focus on Sustainability, and U.S. Banks Boost Provisions for Credit Losses

    AGC Seeks To Lead Industry in Push for Infrastructure Bill

    Winners Announced in Seattle’s Office-to-Residential Call for Ideas Contest

    “Since You Asked. . .”

    Washington State Safety Officials Cite Contractor After Worker's Fatal Fall

    Contract Change #1- Insurance in the A201 (law note)

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Challenging Enforceability of Liquidated Damages (In Federal Construction Context)

    March 11, 2024 —
    A recent summary judgment opinion from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), Appeals Of – BCI Construction USA, Inc.,ASBCA No. 6257, 2024 WL 773324 (2024), contains a worthy discussion regarding a contractor’s challenge to the government’s assessment of liquidated damages, specifically the enforceability of the liquidated damages rate. Although this challenge is in the federal context, this discussion would be more expansive and apply outside of the federal context. When dealing with the enforceability of a liquidated damages, the ASBCA “examines whether the liquidated damages amount ‘is extravagant, or disproportionate to the amount of property loss, as to show that compensation was not the object aimed at or as to imply fraud, mistake, circumvention or oppression.” Appeals of – BCI Construction USA, Inc. (citation omitted). 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

    Home Building Up in Kansas City

    November 20, 2013 —
    It’s been a good year for home builders in Kansas City, Missouri. In fact, it’s the best year since 2007. The total number of home permits issued through October exceeds the number issued in 2012 by 164, having reached 3,463. Sara Corless, executive vice president of the Builders Association, focused more on the growth, though she noted that some builders were hoping the year’s total would exceed 4,000, which she described as “a psychological victory at a minimum.” The Kansas City metropolitan area lead the state in the number of building permits issued. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado’s Workers’ Compensation Act and the Construction Industry

    June 20, 2022 —
    In general, issues relating to employment law occur in all industries. However, some issues are more likely to be raised in certain employment contexts. For example, office work environments tend to give rise to harassment and discrimination claims while wage and hour disputes and workplace safety claims are common in the oil and gas industry. In the construction industry, employers must be especially cognizant of discrimination and harassment claims, employee misclassification claims, workplace safety issues, and wage and hour claims. In the context of workers’ compensation claims, construction projects often create unusual situations due to the contractual relationships between the parties. Even relatively simple construction of a single-family residence involves several levels of contracting, including between the owner and general contractor, between the owner or general contractor and design team, between the general contractor and subcontractors, and between the prime subcontractors and lower tiered sub-subcontractors. In most circumstances, this would not be an issue. However, when an injured worker makes a workers’ compensation claim, the contractual relationships among the various entities involved in a project can have a significant impact on which party or parties could be liable for the injury. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jordan Kaplan, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Kaplan may be contacted at kaplan@hhmrlaw.com

    Pay Loss Provision Does Not Preclude Assignment of Post-Loss Claim

    July 30, 2015 —
    The court determined that a policy's loss payment provision did not bar a post-loss assignment. One Call Prop. Servs. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 2015 Fl. App. LEXIS 7643 (Fla. Ct. App. May 20, 2015). After One Cell performed emergency water removal for the insured, the insured assigned his rights to policy proceeds as payment. One Cell alleged that Security First refused to reimburse the insured adequately for the services provided. One Cell filed suit, and Security First moved to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion based upon the policy's non-assignment provision. One Cell appealed. One Cell argued post-loss assignments were valid under Florida law even when the policy contained an anti-assignment provision, and the right to payment accrued on the date of the loss. 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

    Alabama Supreme Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect to Contractor's own Product

    October 21, 2013 —
    The Alabama Supreme Court followed prior precedent and found that the contractor's faulty workmanship causing damage to his own product did not arise from an occurrence. Owners Ins. Co. v. Jim Carr Homebuilder, LLC, 2013 Ala. LEXIS 122 (Ala. Sept. 20, 2013). The plaintiffs contracted with Carr to construct a new home. After completion of the home and taking occupancy, the plaintiffs noted several problems with the house related to water leaking through the roof, walls and floors, resulting in water damage to various areas of the house. The plaintiffs sued Carr and the case eventually went to arbitration. The arbitrator entered an award in favor of plaintiffs for $600,000. Owners filed an action against Carr for a declaratory judgment seeking to establish there was no coverage because the property damage did not arise from an occurrence. The trial court granted summary judgment to Carr. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    September 12, 2022 —
    In a case brought before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington won a motion for summary judgment in favor of their client, the owner of a residential property (“Property Owner”) in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The Property Owner had retained a Construction Company (“Construction Company” or “Contractor”) to perform renovations to the residence, which included building a new staircase. The Plaintiff alleged that while walking down a set of temporary wooden steps on the property, the third step broke, which caused him to fall and resulted in the alleged injuries. The Plaintiff brought suit against the Property Owner and Construction Company for personal injuries as a result of the alleged fall. In the contract between the Property Owner and the Construction Company, it is stated that “[the Contractor] shall be solely responsible for all construction methods and materials and for coordinating all portions of the Work….The Contractor warrants to [the Property Owner] that all materials and equipment incorporated are new and that all work shall be of good quality and free of defects or faults.” The contract continues to state that the Construction Company shall indemnify and hold harmless the Property Owner against all claims, which includes damages, losses, expenses, legal fees and other costs that might arise from the Construction Company’s performance of the work under the contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    September 01, 2011 —

    A U.S. District Court Judge in Florida has ruled in favor of a company that sought to void a settlement agreement. The case, Water v. HDR Engineering, involved claims of construction defects at Florida’s C.W. Bill Young Regional Reservoir. The Tampa Bay Water Authority attributed these to both HDR Engineering’s design and Bernard Construction Company which had built the embankment. Bernard Construction filed a complaint against their subcontractor, McDonald.

    Tampa Bay Water settled with Bernard Construction and McDonald, in an agreement that set a minimum and maximum settlement, but also would “prohibit Barnard and McDonald from presenting any evidence on several claims and positions of TBW, to require Barnard to call certain witnesses at trial, to preclude Barnard and McDonald from calling other witnesses, and to restrict the filing of trial and post-trial motions.” HDR Engineering moved to void the agreement as collusive.

    The judge that the agreement¬? contained “133 paragraphs of ‘Agreed Facts’ that the parties stipulated would survive any order declaring the Settlement Agreement void or unenforceable.” He characterized these as stipulating “that Barnard neither caused nor contributed to TBW’s damages.” HDR motioned that a summary judgment be given to Barnard Engineering.

    The court found that “the evidence identified by TBW is patently insufficient to survive summary judgment.” Further, TBW’s expert initially held Barnard responsible for “lenses, pockets, streaks and layers within the embankment,” but then later withdrew this assigning the responsibility to HDR. Further, the court notes that, “TBW’s arguments that lenses, pockets, streaks, and layers in the soil wedge caused or contributed to its damages and that Barnard is liable for those damages have been foreclosed by the Agreed Facts.”

    As TBW failed to provide sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment, the court granted summary judgment, mooted the claim against McDonald, and terminated the agreement between TBW and the other parties.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Rooftop Owners Sue Cubs Consultant for Alleged False Statements

    January 24, 2014 —
    A disagreement over signage potentially blocking rooftop owner’s views has stalled Wrigley Field’s proposed $300 million renovation, reported the Chicago Tribune. However, a recently lawsuit filed between the two entities regarded allegedly false statements made by Marc Ganic, a Chicago sports business consultant, published in the Chicago Sun-Times: “In the story, Ganis is quoted as saying the rooftop clubs were ‘stealing’ the Cubs product for their own profit,” according to the Chicago Tribune. The rooftop owners claimed in the suit that “they have a contractual arrangement with the team that allows them to sell tickets to people who want bird’s-eye views of the game.” The Chicago Tribune attempted to contact Ganis for comment, but he “did not return several messages.” The rooftop owners and the Cubs entered into a “20-year agreement in 2004 in which the rooftop owners pay the Cubs 17 percent of the team's yearly profits in exchange for unobstructed views into the ballpark,” according to ESPN. “The Cubs dispute that notion, however, contending the unobstructed views were guaranteed through the landmarking of the bleachers not with the agreement they have with the rooftop owners.” Business president Crane Kenney explained to ESPN that the city council amended the landmarking rule for the field: “[The council has] now recognized the outfield is not a historic feature. And above a 10-foot level we can have signage. That was the big win last summer, among many. That's what the rooftops would contest.” According to ESPN the Cubs will not start the renovation project until they have an agreement with the rooftop owners “that includes a guarantee not to sue the Cubs for breach of contract, which would delay construction.” Read the full story at the Chicago Tribune... Read the full story at ESPN... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of