BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractor
    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


    Do Change Orders Need to be in Writing and Other Things That Might Surprise You

    Arizona Is Smart About Water. It Should Stay That Way.

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors

    The Ups and Downs of Elevator Maintenance Contractor's Policy Limits

    Californians Swarm Few Listings Cuts to Affordable Homes

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

    CA Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Exceptions to Interim Adverse Judgment Rule Defense to Malicious Prosecution Action

    No Coverage For Construction Defect Under Illinois Law

    OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected

    State Farm Unsuccessful In Seeking Dismissal of Qui Tam Case

    Insurance Policy Language Really Does Matter

    Second Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of NY’s Zero Emissions Credit Program

    Social Engineering Scams Are On the Rise – Do I Have Insurance Coverage for That?

    Fourth Circuit Finds Insurer Reservation of Rights Letters Inadequate to Preserve Coverage Defenses Under South Carolina Law

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces New Partners

    SFAA Commends Congress for Maintaining Current Bonding Protection Levels in National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    ‘Revamp the Camps’ Cabins Displayed at the CA State Fair

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Under Kentucky Law

    Builders Seek to Modify Scaffold Law

    Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

    Megaproject Savings Opportunities

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

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

    Stay-At-Home Orders and Work Restrictions with 50 State Matrix

    9th Circuit Plumbs Through the Federal and State False Claims Acts

    North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

    Illinois Attorney General Warns of Home Repair Scams

    Living With a Millennial. Or Grandma.

    Employee Exclusion Bars Coverage for Wrongful Death of Subcontractor's Employee

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Casey Quinn Selected to the 2017 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars List

    Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement

    No Hiring Surge by Homebuilders Says Industry Group

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

    Freddie Mac Eases Mortgage Rules to Limit Putbacks

    Is Modular Construction Destined to Fail?

    High-Rise Condominium Construction Design Defects, A Maryland Construction Lawyer’s Perspective

    U.S. Home Lending Set to Bounce Back in 2015 After Slump

    Where There's Smoke...California's New Emergency Wildfire Smoke Protection Regulation And What Employers Are Required To Do

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Appraisers Limited to Determining Amount of Loss

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” in four practice areas and Tier 2 in one practice area by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2020

    Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts

    NY State Appellate Court Holds That Pollution Exclusions Bar Duty to Defend Under Liability Policies for Claims Alleging Exposure to PFAS

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is Proud to Announce Jeannette Garcia Has Been Elected as Secretary of the Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County!

    Construction Defects in Roof May Close School

    New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute
    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

    The “Up” House is “Up” for Sale

    May 07, 2015 —
    You might remember the 2009 Pixar/Disney 3-D animated movie “Up,” about an aging widower, Carl Frederickson, who learns to let go of his past and live his dream of moving he and his beloved late wife’s “clubhouse” to a cliff overlooking Paradise Falls in Venezuela where the once young couple’s hero, Charles Muntz, a famous but now disgraced explorer, was said to have discovered the skeleton of a rare bird which skeptics alleged was fabricated. In the movie, the “clubhouse” is integral to the plot. In the opening scenes of the movie the audience learns that the clubhouse, which had been Mr. Frederickson’s deceased wife’s clubhouse that the couple later turned into their home, is sitting in the middle of a construction zone because old Mr. Frederickson has refused to sell his house to a developer who has proceeded to build around his house anyway. When a large loader knocks over his mailbox and a construction worker tries to fix it, Mr. Frederickson struggles with the worker not wanting him to touch any of his memories, and in the process inadvertently strikes the man with his cane. Later, in court, Mr. Frederickson learns that he has to leave the house and go to a retirement home. Apparently, justice is quick and decisive in their town. However, instead of going to a retirement home peaceably, codgy Mr. Frederickson rigs the clubhouse with thousands of balloons and proceeds to fly away, home and all. And, so the movie begins. Soon, however, what some have called the real life “Up house” will be sold. And the story behind the house is about as a interesting as its movie counterpart. And, because we lawyers are into disclosures, I will disclose that “counterpart” is more accurate than “adaption,” since the movie Up was in production before the events giving rise to the real life Up house took place. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Banks Loosening U.S. Mortgage Standards: Chart of the Day

    August 13, 2014 —
    Perhaps more U.S. banks than at any time in two decades are making it easier to qualify for a mortgage. The CHART OF THE DAY shows the net share of banks telling the Federal Reserve that they’re tightening standards in the home-loan market. In the central bank’s July survey of senior loan officers released last week, the net percentage for prime mortgages was negative 18.3 percent, by far the most loosening since it started asking the question by loan-quality category in 2007. It was also greater than the highest net share of banks easing in “all” mortgages in the 1990s or 2000s. Still, lenders have a long way to go before they unwind the restrictions they imposed in the wake of the global financial crisis that risky home loans helped to create. The current trend is mainly about “small tweaks around the edges,” according to JPMorgan Chase & Co. mortgage-bond analysts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jody Shenn, Bloomberg
    Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net

    Colorado General Assembly Sets Forth Prerequisites for an Insurance Company to Use Failure to Cooperate as a Defense to a Claim for First Party Insurance Benefits

    August 10, 2020 —
    Despite first party insurance policies generally requiring cooperation from an insured in the investigation of a claim, insurers can no longer rely on the failure to cooperate as a defense in a claim for first party insurance benefits in Colorado unless certain conditions are met. The Bill: On July 2, 2020, Colorado Governor Jared S. Polis signed House Bill 20-1290 which addresses the ability of an insurer to use a failure to cooperate defense in an action where the insured has made a claim for benefits under an insurance policy. This bill bars an insurer from raising the failure to cooperate unless the following conditions are met:
    • The insurer submitted a written request to the insured or the insured’s representative for the information (via electronic means if consent was given by insured or insured’s representative, or via certified mail);
    • The information is not available to the insurer without the assistance of the insured;
    • The written request provides the insured 60 days to respond;
    • The written request is for information a reasonable person would determine the insurer needs to adjust the claim filed by the insured or to prevent fraud; and
    • The insurer gives the insured an opportunity to cure, which must:
      • Provide written notice to the insured of the alleged failure to cooperate, describing with particularity the alleged failure within 60 days after the alleged failure; and
      • Allow the insured 60 days after receipt of the written notice to cure the alleged failure to cooperate.
    Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys Christine Kroupa, John Palmeri and Katelyn Werner Ms. Kroupa may be contacted at ckroupa@grsm.com Mr. Palmeri may be contacted at jpalmeri@grsm.com Ms. Werner may be contacted at kwerner@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Real Estate Trends: Looking Ahead to 2021

    November 09, 2020 —
    2020 has been an unprecedented year, and, while there are likely more twists and turns to come before December 31, it is essential to look at how the real estate markets have changed this year and which trends are likely to continue into 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted nearly every industry, including commercial real estate, and its impact will continue to influence the market and commercial real estate long after the virus has been eradicated. Commercial Real Estate Loan Modifications As the United States’ economy stalled, shut down and slowly started to recover throughout 2020, many businesses were negatively impacted, and most property owners found themselves negotiating with both their lenders and tenants. As tenants were unable to pay rent, property owners were unable to service their debt, which led to a surge of loan modifications this year. This trend certainly will continue through the first half of 2021, as the economy continues to recover. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Adam Weaver, Pillsbury
    Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com

    Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line

    October 11, 2017 —
    The Washington State Court of Appeals recently addressed an excavation contractor’s responsibilities under the Underground Utilities Damage Prevention Act (UUDPA), RCW 19.122. That statute was enacted in 2011 and imposed certain statutory duties on parties involved with projects requiring excavation. In this case, Titan Earthworks, LLC contracted with the City of Federal Way to perform certain street improvements including installation of a new traffic signal. During the process of excavating for the traffic signal, Titan drilled into an energized underground Puget Sound Energy power line. PSE sought damages from Titan and Titan sued the City of Federal Way. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at bhill@ac-lawyers.com

    Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods

    July 22, 2019 —
    State of Texas, et al. v. US EPA. The revised regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” continues to generate litigation in the federal courts. On May 28, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the 2015 rulemaking proceedings used by EPA and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to redefine this important component of the Clean Water Act were flawed in that the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) were violated because insufficient notice was provided by these agencies that “adjacent” waters newly subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of these agencies, can be determined on the basis of specific distances, which was a change in the agencies’ thinking, and insufficient notice of this change was provided to the public. In addition, the final rule “also violated the APA by preventing interested parties from commenting on the scientific studies that served as the technical basis” for the rule. However, the court did not vacate the new rule, but remanded the matter to the “appropriate administrative agencies” to give them an opportunity to fix this problem. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma v. US EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. A day later, on May 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma rejected arguments that the new redefinition should be preliminarily enjoined.While this case was filed in 2015, intervening litigation in the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, caused a substantial delay in the disposition of this case. The court, noting that the tests for granting such an injunction against the federal government are fairly exacting, held that the plaintiffs, the State of Oklahoma and a number of industry groups and associations, failed to convince the court that the harm they would suffer if the rules remained effective would be irreparable. Presumably, this case will be going to trial in the near future. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

    December 31, 2014 —
    Richard H. Glucksman, Jon Turigliatto, and Kacey R. Riccomini of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger analyzed Transport and wrote, “The decision is an important tool for builders’ counsel because the builder’s reasonable expectations can alter the interpretation of ambiguous terms in policies issued to subcontractors. Essentially, the builder’s intent is relevant to the interpretation of policy terms because the subcontractor’s intent in requesting additional coverage depends on the agreement it made with the builder.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Michigan Supreme Court Concludes No Statute of Repose on Breach of Contract

    July 19, 2011 —

    Judge Marilyn Kelly of the Michigan Supreme Court has remanded the case of Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr. Inc. (Mich., 2011) to the Court of Appeals, after determining that the court had improperly applied the statute of repose. She reversed their judgment, pending a new trial.

    Ahrens Construction was a subcontractor, hired by Miller-Davis to build and install a natatorium room at a YMCA camp in Kalamazoo, Michigan. After its installation, the YMCA discovered a severe condensation problem, causing moisture to “rain” from the roof. The architect, testifying for Miller-Davis, alleged that the problems were due to improper installation by Ahrens. Ahrens claimed that the condensation problem was due to a design error.

    When the roof was removed and reconstructed, the moisture problem ended. Ahrens argued that the alleged defects were caused by the removal. Further, in trial Ahrens raised the issue of the statute of repose. The court found in favor of Miller-Davis and did not address the statute of repose.

    The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, determining that the statute of repose had barred the suit. This rendered the other issues moot.

    The Michigan Supreme concluded that the issue at hand was “a suit for breach of contract,” and that the Michigan statute of repose is limited to tort actions. They remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the issues that had been mooted by the application of the statute of repose.

    Read the court’s decision…

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