BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut engineering 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


    Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

    Assessing Defective Design Liability on Federal Design-Build Projects

    Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design

    Additional Insured Secures Defense Under Subcontractor's Policy

    Fannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' Basements

    No Occurrence Where Contract Provides for Delays

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    From Both Sides Now: Looking at Contracts Through a Post-Pandemic Lens

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    NAHB Reports on U.S. Jobs Created from Home Building

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II

    Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

    Is It Time to Revisit Construction Defects in Kentucky?

    Without Reservations: Fourth Circuit Affirms That Vague Reservation of Rights Waived Insurers’ Coverage Arguments

    Washington Court of Appeals Divisions Clash Over Interpretations of the Statute of Repose

    Designers George Yabu and Glenn Pushelberg Discuss One57’s Ultra-Luxury Park Hyatt

    OSHA Set to Tag More Firms as Severe Violators Under New Criteria

    How BIM Can Serve Building Owners

    PAGA Right of Action Not Applicable to Construction Workers Under Collective Bargaining Agreement

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

    Missouri Protects Subrogation Rights

    To Require Arbitration or Not To Require Arbitration

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    Legal Matters Escalate in Aspen Condo Case

    Evacuations in Santa Barbara County as more Mudslides are Predicted

    Federal Court Again Confirms No Coverage For Construction Defects in Hawaii

    Las Vegas Student Housing Developer Will Name Replacement Contractor

    Insurance and Your Roof

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Slump to Lowest Level Since November

    Risky Business: Contractual Protections in the 'New Normal'

    California Supreme Court Holds that Requirement of Prejudice for Late Notice Defense is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State for Choice of Law Analysis

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case

    Another Law Will Increase Construction Costs in New York

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage Of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage

    The Project “Completion” Paradox in California

    Jason Poore Receives 2018 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award

    Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?

    Drafting or Negotiating A Subcontract–Questions To Consider

    The Unthinkable Has Happened. How Should Contractors Respond?

    Suffolk Pauses $1.5B Boston Tower Project for Safety Audit After Fire

    Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage

    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    Amazon HQ2 Puts Concrete on an Embodied Carbon Diet

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida
    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

    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    November 18, 2011 —

    Continuing the development of Boston’s Theater District, Millennium Partners broke ground for the building of Hayward Place, a 15-story residential tower with street-level shops. The project is expected to take two years to complete and will employ about 450 construction workers.

    Thomas Menino, the mayor of Boston said that the “ground breaking of Hayward Place is another sign of economic growth and forward progress on the revitalization of this area.” The project will be built by Suffolk Construction. John Fish, their CEO, said they were “fortunate as a contractor to be the beneficiary of this.”

    The report in the Boston Herald notes that a few blocks away, the site of the former Filenes department store is still “an empty eyesore.” Menino joked, “anyone want to bid for it?” He promised that site would also be developed.

    Read the full story…

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

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    January 25, 2021 —
    Eight Haight attorneys have been selected to the 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Congratulations to: Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Power of Workers Compensation Immunity on Construction Project

    November 30, 2017 —
    On construction projects, workers compensation immunity is real and it is powerful. (See also this article.) Workers compensation immunity is why all general contractors should have workers compensation insurance and they should ensure the subcontractors they hire have workers compensation insurance. Workers compensation insurance becomes the exclusive form of liability for an injured worker thereby immunizing an employer (absent an intentional tort, which is very hard to prove as a means to circumvent workers compensation immunity). If a general contractor, with workers compensation insurance, hires a subcontractor without workers compensation insurance, the general contractor’s workers compensation insurance will be responsible in the event an injury occurs to a subcontractor’s employee. The general contractor becomes the statutory employer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Ninth Circuit Court Weighs In On Insurance Coverage For COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    October 11, 2021 —
    On October 1, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a trio of cases involving COVID-19 business interruption losses, in a series of written opinions with results favoring the insurers. Despite the slate of wins for insurers in this round of cases, these rulings are limited to cases where policyholders either did not allege the presence of COVID-19 on their premises causing “physical alteration” of the property itself, or had a virus exclusion in their policy, or both. This leaves room for future cases potentially ruling in favor of coverage where the insureds allege the presence of coronavirus on the premises, and that there was a detrimental physical alteration of the property as a result. To date, the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on such a situation. RULING 1: Mudpie v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Co. of America The Ninth Circuit first considered a proposed class action brought by a children’s store operator, Mudpie. Mudpie sought business income and extra expense coverage from Travelers after California and local authorities issued shutdown orders impacting Mudpie’s operations due to COVID-19. (Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, Case No. 20-16858, --- F.4th --- (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021).) Travelers denied coverage, asserting that the claim did not involve “direct physical loss of or damage to” property “caused by or resulting from a covered Cause of Loss.” Travelers also denied coverage under language excluding “loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus…that induces…physical distress, illness or disease.” Applying California law, the trial court agreed with Travelers on both accounts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rondi J. Walsh, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Walsh may be contacted at rondi.walsh@ndlf.com

    California Commission Recommends Switching To Fault-Based Wildfire Liability Standard for Public Utilities

    June 25, 2019 —
    A state-appointed panel advised last week that California should change the standard for determining whether utilities are liable for wildfires. Under the current system, California’s Public Utilities Code § 2106 provides a private right of action by any person or entity that has suffered loss, damages, or injury caused by prohibited or unlawful acts of a public utility. Relying on this statute, property owners have asserted wildfire-related claims directly against allegedly culpable electric utility companies. Public utilities in California also face inverse condemnation claims arising out of wildfires. Under inverse condemnation, where private property is taken for public use and later damaged by the state or its agency, the state or agency is strictly liable to the property owner. In an effort to reduce the financial impact on public utilities resulting from wildfires—as exemplified by Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s recent filing for Chapter 11 protection in January—the California Commission on Catastrophic Wildfire Cost and Recovery recommended changing the current laws to reflect a fault-based standard. According to the panel, this change would reduce the risk of bankruptcy and decrease the cost of capital. The commission also recommended establishing a wildfire victims’ fund and setting up an electric utility wildfire board to handle the prevention and mitigation of utility-related wildfires. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Lawrence J. Bracken II, Sergio F. Oehninger, Paul T. Moura and Alexander D. Russo Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Paul may be contacted at pmoura@HuntonAK.com Mr. Alexander may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    TxDOT, Flatiron/Dragados Mostly Resolve Bridge Design Dispute

    March 13, 2023 —
    The Texas Dept. of Transportation and contractor Flatiron/Dragados LLC have “completely satisfied” four of the five main design safety concerns the state agency raised over the under-construction new Harbor Bridge in Corpus Christi, officials say. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor Jailed for Home Repair Fraud

    November 27, 2013 —
    An Illinois man has received his third prison sentence for construction fraud, this time for five and a half years. Perry Porter was arrested in October and plead guilty to aggravated home repair fraud. Mr. Porter had charged a homeowner $1,000 per hour for a home repair that should have cost a total of $500. Mr. Porter has also been ordered to pay $6,700 in restitution to the victim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Judicial Panel Denies Nationwide Consolidation of COVID-19 Business Interruption Cases

    October 05, 2020 —
    The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied motions to centralize pretrial proceedings in pending COVID-19 business interruption claims. In re COVID-19 Business interruption Protection Insurance Litigation, 2020 U.S. District. LEXIS 144446 (Aug. 12, 2020). Plaintiff policy holders sought consolidation, contending their policies provided coverage for business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government orders suspending, or severely curtailing, operations of non-essential businesses. The Panel considered 15 actions on the pending motions, but had notice of 263 related actions. Some plaintiffs opposed centralization or sought to be excluded from any MDL. Some argued the Panel should centralize the coverage actions on a state-by-state, regional, or insurer-by-insurer basis. The Panel did not accept consolidation of all cases. There was little potential for common discovery across the litigation because there was no common defendant as the actions involved either a single insurer or insurer-group. The various cases involved different insurance policies with different coverages, conditions, exclusions, and policy language, purchased by different businesses in different industries located in different states. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com