BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure 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


    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit with Additional Million

    This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Rise Most in Four Years

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Home Construction Thriving in Lubbock

    What ‘The Curse’ Gets Wrong About Passive House Architecture

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

    Ohio Rejects the Majority Trend and Finds No Liability Coverage for a Subcontractor’s Faulty Work

    UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

    California’s Housing Costs Endanger Growth, Analyst Says

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

    Construction Defect Claim Not Timely Filed

    University of Tennessee’s New Humanities Building Construction Set to Begin

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    Crane Firm Pulled Off NYC Projects Following Multiple Incidents

    Pandemic Magnifies Financial Risk in Construction: What Executives Can Do to Speed up Customer Payments

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    FIFA Inspecting Brazil’s World Cup Stadiums

    Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien

    Oregon Bridge Closed to Inspect for Defects

    Be Sure to Dot All of the “I’s” and Cross the “T’s” in Virginia

    Union THUGS Plead Guilty

    ASCE Releases New Report on Benefits and Burdens of Infrastructure Investment in Disadvantaged Communities

    FAA Plans Final Regulation on Commercial Drone Use by Mid-2016

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects at Trump Towers

    The Increasing Trend of Caps in Construction Contracts and Negotiating Them

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied

    Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures

    Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery

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

    SB800 CONFIRMED AS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Duty to Defend When Case Law is Uncertain

    Detroit Craftsmen Sift House Rubble in Quest for Treasured Wood

    Long-Planned Miami Mega Mixed-Use Development Nears Initial Debut

    Recent Developments Involving Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington

    2014 WCC Panel: Working Smarter with Technology

    Hurricane Laura: Implications for Insurers in Louisiana

    Gordon & Rees Ranked #4 of Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation by Construction Executive Magazine

    Governmental Action Exclusion Bars Claim for Damage to Insured's Building

    New Jersey Imposes New Apprenticeship Training Requirements

    Henderson Engineers Tests AI for Building Systems Design with Torch.AI

    Luxury Villa Fraudsters Jailed for Madeira Potato Field Scam

    Four Key Steps for a Successful Construction Audit Process

    Bad Faith Jury Verdict Upheld After Insurer's Failure to Settle Within Policy Limits

    Construction Picks Up Post-COVID and So Do Claims (and A Construction Lawyer Can Help)

    Real Estate Developer Convicted in $1.3 Billion Tax Case After Juror Removed

    Contractor’s Unwritten Contractual Claim Denied by Sovereign Immunity; Mandamus Does Not Help

    When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?
    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

    99-Year-Old Transmission Tower Seen as Possible Cause of Devastating Calif. Wildfire

    December 11, 2018 —
    Dec. 08 --PULGA -- With winds gusting around 50 mph in the morning hours of Nov. 8 , portions of a PG&E steel lattice transmission tower -- exposed to the elements high on a ridgetop and originally built when Woodrow Wilson was president -- failed. As high-voltage lines got loose and whipped around, striking the metal tower, molten aluminum and metal sprayed across tinder dry vegetation, igniting the brush. Arriving firefighters could only watch as the blaze underneath the power lines quickly spread to wild timber and brush. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Texas Shortens Cut-Off Date for Suits Against Homebuilders Who Provide a 6-Year Written Warranty

    June 26, 2023 —
    Summary of the new law as it pertains to builders of new homes: The existing 10-year statute of repose for builders of new homes (the ultimate cut-off date for filing suit) has been shortened to 6 years if the builder provides a 1-2-6 written warranty (1-year workmanship and materials; 2-year plumbing, electrical and HVAC; 6-year structural). Extended time to bring suit if written claim presented during the period of repose: If a written claim for damages, contribution, or indemnity is presented to the builder during the applicable limitations period and the 6-year statute of repose applies, the time to sue is extended one year from the date the claim is presented. In practical effect, this means that if a written claim is presented and the statute of repose expires before suit is filed, suit may still be filed provided it is within one year of the date the written claim was made. When the new law goes into effect: The new law is effective as of June 9, 2023 and applies to suits commenced on or after that date. However, if the contract under which the claim is brought was entered into before June 9, 2023, the former 10-year version of the statute of repose applies. In other words, the statute applies to contracts entered into on or after June 9, 2023, if the contract has at least a 1-2-6 warranty. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kim Altsuler - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Ms. Altsuler may be contacted at kaltsuler@pecklaw.com

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2021 “Atlanta 500” List

    March 01, 2021 —
    Atlanta Partner Candis Jones has been named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2021 “Atlanta 500” list of the most powerful business leaders in Atlanta. To compile this list, the publication reviewed nominations from the public and consulted experts across various sectors. The magazine’s editors and writers considered not only the status of the nominees within their respective organizations, but also whether the nominees were visionary by, for example, leading programs for their communities or creating opportunities for employees. Ms. Jones is a member of Lewis Brisbois’ General Liability Practice. Representing a wide array of clients, including Fortune 500 companies, insurance carriers, and a major metropolitan transit authority, she focuses her practice on insurance defense, premises liability, personal injury, and medical malpractice. She was recently installed as the President of the Gate City Bar Association, the oldest African-American bar association in the state of Georgia, and also serves as a member of the Georgia Defense Lawyers Association and the Georgia Association of Black Women Attorneys. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Candis Jones, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Jones may be contacted at Candis.Jones@lewisbrisbois.com

    Workers on Big California Bridge Tackle Oil Wells, Seismic Issues

    February 02, 2017 —
    Surrounded by workers, Nik Pecci, project safety manager with PMCM Consulting Engineers for the $1.5-billion Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement project—which is revitalizing a 50-year-old link in Long Beach—gestured in several directions: “I’ve got all these [port] tenants here, I’ve got a massive bridge over here. I have to build this thing intertwined with one of the busiest ports in the world. I constantly have commuters, cargo trucks and trailers and trains.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, ENR
    Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com

    Florida Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeowners Unaware of Construction Defects and Lack of Permits

    December 09, 2011 —

    The Florida Court of Appeals has ruled that a homeowner is not liable for defects in unpermitted alterations, reversing a lower court’s decision in Jensen v. Bailey. The Jensens sold their house to the Baileys. During the sale, the Jensens filled out a property disclosure statement, checking “no” to a question about “any improvement or additions to the property, whether by your or by others that have been constructed in violation of building codes or without necessary permits.”

    After moving in, the Baileys discovered several problems with the home. One involved a defective sewer connection leading to repeated backups. The Baileys also found problems with remodeling the Jensens had done in the kitchen, master bath, and bedroom. The remodeling work was not done with required permits nor was it up to code.

    The court noted that an earlier case, Johnson v. Davis, established four criteria: “the seller of a home must have knowledge of a defect in the property; the defect must materially affect the value of the property; the defect must not be readily observable and must be unknown to the buyer; and the buyer must establish that the seller failed to disclose the defect to the buyer.” The court found that the first of these criteria was crucial to determining the case.

    In the Johnson ruling, the then Chief Justice dissented, fearing that the courts “would ultimately construe Johnson’s requirement of actual knowledge to permit a finding of liability based on constructive knowledge,” quoting Justice Boyd, “a rule of constructive knowledge will develop based on the reasoning that if the seller did not know of the defect, he should have known about it before attempting to sell the property.” The Appeals Court concluded that the lower court hit this point in ruling on Jensen v. Bailey.

    Citing other Florida cases, the court noted that the Johnson rule does require “proof of the seller’s actual knowledge of the defect.” The court cited a case in which it was concluded that the seller “should have known” that there was circumstantial evidence was that the seller did know about the defects, as the seller had been involved in the construction of the home.

    In the case of the Jensens, the lower court concluded that they did not know that the work was defective, nor did they know that they were obligated to obtain permits for it. The Appeals Court found this one fact sufficient to reverse the decision and remand the case to the lower court for a final judgment in favor of the Jensens.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    City of Sacramento Approves Kings NBA Financing Plan

    May 21, 2014 —
    Sacramento, California’s city council recently approved a financing plan that will enable the construction of the $477 million downtown arena project to move forward, reported KNOE News. Sacramento will now be responsible for a $223 million subsidy, and “the Kings would contribute $254 million to construct the arena and develop surrounding land with a hotel, office tower and shopping.” “Kings President Chris Granger called it a historic day for the team and Sacramento region, saying the arena would serve as a hub for economic development,” according to KNOE News. “The project would bring 11,000 construction jobs and 4,000 permanent jobs, [Granger] said.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    EEOC Suit Alleges Site Managers Bullied Black Workers on NY Project

    June 15, 2020 —
    Bullying, threats and racial slurs detail alleged “hostile” working conditions for black employees at a now complete cement plant modernization project near Albany, N.Y., in a lawsuit filed June 2 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against CCC Group Inc., a San Antonio, Texas-based general contractor. Emell D. Adolphus, 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

    Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

    February 10, 2020 —
    Is an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or the common law. In New York, an insured may recover such expenses if it was “cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations,” and, while forced into that posture, the insured defeats the insurer’s claim. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (N.Y. 1979). As a corollary to that rule, the insured is not entitled to its expenses “in an affirmative action brought by [the insured] to settle its rights. . . .” Id. at 1085. Earlier this week, the New York federal court in United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lux Maint. & Ren. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) became the latest to apply the Mighty Midgets rule, awarding several insureds their legal expenses after defeating the insurer’s declaratory judgment action. In Lux, the CGL insurer of a façade-renovation contractor sued the contractor (its named insured) and several owners of a hospital (putative additional insureds) at which the façade-renovation work took place, claiming that the insurer did not owe a defense or indemnity to any of those companies in connection with an underlying bodily injury action brought by an employee of the contractor who was injured while performing the work. The insurer and the putative additional insureds filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues, with the putative additional insureds also seeking to recover their legal expenses for defending against the insurer’s action. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that, based on the contractor’s agreement to provide coverage for the hospital owners, and a comparison between the underlying allegations and the policy, the insurer owed the hospital owners coverage as additional insureds to the contractor’s policy; the court also concluded that the insurer owed coverage for the contractor’s contractual defense and indemnity obligations to the hospital owners. After concluding that the insurer’s claim that it did not owe coverage lacked merit, the court turned to the additional insureds’ request for their legal expenses. The court examined the “well settled” rule under New York law “that an insured cannot recover his legal expenditure in a dispute with an insurer over coverage, even if the insurer loses and is obligated to provide coverage,” but also New York’s “limited exception” to that rule, “under which an insured who is ‘cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations, and who prevails on the merits, may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the insurer’s action.’ ” Lux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805, at *18 (quoting Mighty Midgets, 389 N.E.2d at 1085). Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of