BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management 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


    Plaintiffs Not Barred from Proving Causation in Slip and Fall Case, Even With No Witnesses and No Memory of Fall Itself

    Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

    BHA’s Next MCLE Seminar in San Diego on July 25th

    Examining Construction Defect as Occurrence in Recent Case Law and Litigation

    U.S. Housing Starts Exceed Estimates After a Stronger December

    Florida Court of Appeals Rejects Insurer’s Attempt to Intervene in Underlying Lawsuit to Submit Special Interrogatories

    Daily Reports – The Swiss Army Knife of Project Documentation

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/25/23) – Artificial Intelligence, Proptech Innovation, and Drone Adoption

    A Deep Dive Into an Undervalued Urban Marvel

    Why Construction Firms Should Think Differently on the Issue of Sustainability

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    NTSB Issues 'Urgent' Recommendations After Mass. Pipeline Explosions

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Preserves Possibility of Coverage

    Window Installer's Alleged Faulty Workmanship On Many Projects Constitutes Multiple Occurrences

    Builders FirstSource to Buy ProBuild for $1.63 Billion

    Settlement Reached in California Animal Shelter Construction Defect Case

    Power to the Office Worker

    Liability Coverage for Claims of Publishing Secret Data Does Not Require Access by Others

    Cameron Kalunian to Speak at Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

    Court Provides Guidance on ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Provisions in Construction Subcontracts

    A Proactive Approach to Construction Safety

    Overtime! – When the Statute of Limitations Isn’t Game Over For Your Claim

    Managing Infrastructure Projects with Infrakit – Interview with Teemu Kivimäki

    Insureds Survive Summary Judgment on Coverage for Hurricane Loss

    Court Strikes Expert Opinion That Surety Acted as a “De Facto Contractor”

    Foreclosing Junior Lienholders and Recording A Lis Pendens

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    Homebuilding Held Back by Lack of Skilled Workers

    Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson

    The EEOC Is Actively Targeting the Construction Industry

    Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

    Dynamics of Managing Professional Liability Claims for Design Builders

    What The U.S. Can Learn from China to Bring Its Buildings to New Heights

    The Double-Breasted Dilemma

    Facebook Posts “Not Relevant” Rules Florida Appeals Court

    Montana Federal Court Upholds Application of Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    IoT: Take Guessing Out of the Concrete Drying Process

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    NJ Court Reaffirms Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims and Finds Fraud Claims Inherently Intentional

    Factor the Factor in Factoring

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “It’s None of Your Business.”

    U.S. Codes for Deck Attachment

    Claims against Broker for Insufficient Coverage Fail

    ‘Like a War Zone’: Malibu Fire Ravages Multimillion-Dollar Homes

    Understand the Dispute Resolution Provision You Are Agreeing To

    Not All Design-Build Projects are Created Equal

    Congratulations to Haight’s 2021 Super Lawyers San Diego Rising Stars

    Manhattan Developer Wants Claims Dismissed in Breach of Contract Suit
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite

    January 18, 2021 —
    Creating a conscious and robust safety culture is essential to the bottom line. A history of, and reputation for, stringent safety protocols will help contractors win more bids and reduce potential exposure to costly fines. According to OSHA, one out of every five worker deaths is construction-related. Non-fatal construction-related injuries are rising. Now is not the time to be complacent, even for contractors with a clean, or relatively clean, safety record. Situations are changing and, in some cases, better, safer and more efficient options are becoming available. There are three areas of concern that deserve construction executives’ close attention. Safety Glasses or Face Shield Concerns in the Wake of COVID-19 Facial and eye injuries can occur any time a worker is nailing, cutting, grinding, welding, working with concrete or handling hazardous chemicals. Now with COVID-19 protocols requiring face coverings, there is an unanticipated aggravation: fogged safety glasses. Reprinted courtesy of Deb Hilmerson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Chicago Debt Document Says $8.5B O'Hare Revamp May Be Delayed

    October 26, 2020 —
    The $8.5-billion revamp of O'Hare International Airport may have to be delayed because of COVID-19 related economic impacts, according to documents included in paperwork to refinance existing airport debt. The city forcefully disagreed with that summation, however, and says the project will move forward and is not endangered. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Problem with One Year Warranties

    June 10, 2015 —
    Contractors often ask if they should include a one year warranty in their subcontracts. I tell them that they can, but it may be more effective to include a one-year correction period. If a contractor does include a warranty in the contract, it may actually extend the time in which a contractor may be sued. I recommend instead a Correction Period. Typical Construction Warranties Form construction contracts, like the AIA forms, often times contain warranty language. The AIA A201, General Conditions, contains a warranty section that covers materials, but it does not address how long the work is warranted: “3.5 WARRANTY The Contractor warrants to the Owner and Architect that materials and equipment furnished under the Contract will be of good quality and new unless the Contract Documents require or permit otherwise. The Contractor further warrants that the Work will conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents and will be free from defects, except for those inherent in the quality of the Work the Contract Documents require or permit.” Instead, the AIA A201, section 13.7, limits the time by which claims must be brought to 10 years or the applicable statute of limitations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Florida Court of Appeals Holds Underlying Tort Case Must Resolve Before Third-Party Spoliation Action Can Be Litigated

    December 04, 2018 —
    In Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 43 Fla. L. Weekly 2225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., Sept. 26, 2018), the Third District Court of Appeals of Florida addressed whether a third-party spoliation claim should be litigated and tried at the same time as the plaintiff’s underlying tort case. The court held that since the third-party spoliation claim did not accrue until the underlying claim was resolved, the spoliation cause of action could not proceed until the plaintiff resolved his underlying claim. The underlying matter in Amerisure involved a personal injury claim by plaintiff Lazaro Rodriguez. While working as an employee for BV Oil, Inc. (BV), Mr. Rodriguez was knocked from the top of a gasoline tanker he was fueling at a gasoline storage warehouse owned by Cosme Investment (Cosme). Mr. Rodriguez filed a personal injury lawsuit against Cosme. He also collected worker’s compensation benefits from Amerisure Insurance Company (Amerisure), BV’s worker’s compensation carrier, while his lawsuit was pending. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White & Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    June 29, 2017 —
    The significant issues test to determine the prevailing party in construction lien actions (which, by the way, also applies to breach of contract actions) applies to appellate attorney’s fees too! Under this test, the trial court has discretion to determine which party prevailed on the significant issues of the case for purposes of attorney’s fees. The trial court also has discretion to determine that neither party was the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. In a recent decision, Bauer v. Ready Windows Sales & Service Corp., 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1417a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), there were competing motions for appellate attorney’s fees. Both parties believed they should be deemed the prevailing party under Florida Statute s. 713.29 (statute that authorizes prevailing party attorney’s fees under Florida’s Construction Lien Law). The appellate court held that neither party was the prevailing party under the significant issues test: “[W]e conclude that each party lost on their appeal, while each party successfully defended that part of the judgment in their favor on the other party’s cross-appeal. Because both parties prevailed on significant issues, this Court finds that appellate fees are not warranted for either party.” Bauer, supra. 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

    Make Prudent Decisions regarding your Hurricane Irma Property Damage Claims

    September 14, 2017 —
    Hurricane Irma barreled down on us with all of her forceful winds and torrential rains. She was scary and relentless. There was mass evacuation. Commercial flights were booked. Trains were booked. There was gridlock with the concern as to whether gas would even be available. There were many people that did not evacuate, uncertain as to the eventual path Irma would take. Originally projecting an easterly course, people on the east coast evacuated to the west coast, central Florida or out-of-state. She then shifted to a westerly course forcing people on the west coast to evacuate to the east coast, central Florida, or out-of-state. It was chaos stemming from the total unpredictability of Mother Nature. It was chaos stemming from the dreadful images of Hurricane Harvey. Mother Nature and all of her uncertainty is undoubtedly frightening, as proven by her devastation throughout the amazing state of Florida. 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

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces Jessica Garland as Its Newest Partner

    January 16, 2024 —
    NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – January 10, 2024 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that Newport Beach attorney Jessica Garland has been elected to partnership. Garland focuses her practice on employment law and construction law. In her employment practice, Jessica defends companies against numerous types of employment-related claims including claims for discrimination, wrongful termination, harassment, retaliation, unfair competition, wage and hour violations, employee misclassifications, and Cal/OSHA citations. Garland's practice also includes work in residential and commercial construction. Jessica represents residential developers in complex, multi-party construction defect disputes. In commercial construction, Jessica is focused on defending general contractors in all aspects of construction litigation including delay claims, mechanic's lien claims, defect litigation claims, ADA claims, and construction contract disputes. About Newmeyer Dillion For over 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 60 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's operations, growth, and profits. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Design-Build Contracting: Is the Shine Off the Apple?

    March 09, 2020 —
    The design-build delivery method offers many benefits to owners. Among the cited benefits are that projects are generally completed faster, at a lower cost, by allowing innovative approaches through early and continual contractor involvement in the design process. The design contractor serves as a single point of contact responsible for both the design and construction of the project. The Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) utilized the design-build procurement method on the largest project ($2 billion) of its type in the state of Washington: the Highway 99 Tunnel, which was finished almost three years late after the tunnel-boring machine (“Bertha”) broke down six years ago. The sorted tale of the SR-99 Tunnel Project was the source of many of this firm’s blog articles.[1] The State of Washington staunchly maintained that the design-build contract protected its taxpayers from covering the repair costs to the tunnel-boring machine when it broke down in 2013. Bertha did not resume tunneling for almost two years, putting on hold removal of the Alaska Way viaduct and rebuilding of the Seattle Waterfront without an elevated highway. In December 2013, the contractor for the project, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), contended that a 110-foot long 8” steel pipe which Bertha hit caused the breakdown. That pipe had been installed for groundwater testing by WSDOT in 2002 during its preliminary engineering for the viaduct replacement project. The project’s Dispute Review Board (“DRB”) composed of three tunneling experts found that the pipe constituted a “differing site condition” for which the State was responsible to disclose to contractors. The Board, whose views were non-binding, did not opine about how much damage the undisclosed pipe cost.[2] In other words, the mere fact that a differing site condition occurred did not establish that there was a causal connection between the damages which STP was seeking (in excess of $600 million) and the differing site condition (the 8” steel pipe which WSDOT lawyers at trial derisively referred to as “nothing more than a toothpick for Bertha’s massive cutter head”). STP maintained that Bertha had made steady progress except for three days immediately after hitting the pipe. It didn’t help the contractors’ case that during the discovery phase of the two-month trial, WSDOT lawyers uncovered documents showing that the contractor’s tunnel workers encountered and logged the pipe before digging began.[3] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com