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


    Newmeyer & Dillion Appoints Partner Carol Zaist as General Counsel

    Assessing Defective Design Liability on Federal Design-Build Projects

    Two Architecturally Prized Buildings May be Demolished

    Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects

    Make Sure to Properly Perfect and Preserve Construction Lien Rights

    Comparative Breach of Contract – The New Benefit of the Bargain in Construction?

    Taking Advantage of New Tax Credits and Prevailing Wage Bonuses Under the Inflation Reduction Act for Clean Energy Construction Projects

    Construction May Begin with Documents, but It Shouldn’t End That Way

    When is an Indemnification Provision Unenforceable?

    Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor

    Canada Home Resales Post First Fall in Eight Months

    Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

    Asserting Non-Disclosure Claim Involving Residential Real Property and Whether Facts Are “Readily Observable”

    Update: Amazon Can (Still) Be Liable in Louisiana

    Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas

    Hawaii Federal District Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement on Volcano Damage

    PFAS: From Happy Mistake to Ubiquity to Toxic Liability (But is there coverage?)

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Haight has been named by Best Law Firms® as a Tier 1, 2 and 3 National Firm in Three Practice Areas in 2024

    Government’s Termination of Contractor for Default for Failure-To-Make Progress

    Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

    New Mexico Holds One-Sided Dispute Resolution Provisions Are Unenforceable

    Eleven Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2023 U.S. News Best Lawyers in Multiple Practice Areas

    Dealing with Hazardous Substances on the Construction Site

    Scarce Cemetery Space Creates Prices to Die For: Cities

    Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California

    ENR 2024 Water Report: Managers Look to Potable Water Reuse

    Largest US Dam Removal Stirs Debate Over Coveted West Water

    Torrey Pines Court Receives Funding for Renovation

    The Road to Rio 2016: Zika, Super Bacteria, and Construction Delays. Sounds Like Everything is Going as Planned

    How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

    Dorian’s Wrath: How Event Cancellation Insurance Helps Businesses Recoup Losses from Severe Weather

    Drowning of Two Boys Constitutes One Occurrence

    Keeping Your Workers Safe When Air Quality Isn't

    California Court of Appeal Makes Short Work Trial Court Order Preventing Party From Supplementing Experts

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Based Upon Exclusion for Contractual Assumption of Liability

    Defense Owed to Directors and Officers Despite Insured vs. Insured Exclusion

    Indemnity: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You!

    Steel-Fiber Concrete Link Beams Perform Well in Tests

    Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

    Signs of a Slowdown in Luxury Condos

    Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor

    Midview Board of Education Lawsuit Over Construction Defect Repairs

    Executive Insights 2024: Leaders in Construction Law

    Mid-Session Overview of Colorado’s 2017 Construction Defect Legislation

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    What You Need to Know to Protect the Project Against Defect Claims

    Wait, You Want An HOA?! Restricting Implied Common-Interest Communities

    Cause Still Unclear in March Retaining Wall Collapse on $900M NJ Interchange

    There Is No Sympathy If You Fail to Read Closely the Final Negotiated Construction Contract
    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

    Trump Signs $2-Trillion Stimulus Bill for COVID-19 Emergency

    April 06, 2020 —
    President Donald Trump has signed the massive measure approved by Congress aimed at helping laid-off workers, financially strapped companies and a stressed health care system as a result of the coronavirus outbreak. Final congressional action came on March 27, when the House passed the bill by voice vote. President Trump signed it a short time later. Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Harmon Towers

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Nevada Supreme Court started hearings on Tuesday, June 4 over the fate of Harmon towers. MGM Resorts is hoping to obtain permission from the court to tear down the tower, which they claim could collapse should an earthquake strike Las Vegas. Perini Corp, the builder, wants the building to remain standing in order to support their claim that the building’s flaws are through design and not construction errors. KLAS quoted one of Perini’s lawyers claiming that MGM had pursued a media strategy to prejudice potential jurors against the contractor. “CityCenter hired Cedric and Bunting to place advertisements with the media to win the hearts and minds of the community and to convince the public pretrial that Perini was, quote, ‘scum of the earth.’” If the Supreme Court gives the go-ahead, demolition would begin soon. Still pending, is the $500 lawsuit over the allegations of construction defects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Maria Latest Threat to Puerto Rico After $1 Billion Irma Hit

    September 20, 2017 —
    Hurricane Maria was on course to hit Puerto Rico just two weeks after Irma caused as much as $1 billion in damages on the bankrupt island. Maria’s top winds were at 155 miles (250 kilometers) an hour, the National Hurricane Center said in a notice around 6 a.m. New York time. At Category 5, the strongest classification on the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale, Maria was about 35 miles southeast of San Juan in Puerto Rico. Reprinted courtesy of Brian K. Sullivan, Bloomberg and Ezra Fieser, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    June 17, 2011 —

    The Louisiana Court of Appeals rejected an appeal to reverse a summary judgment granted to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. Terrence and Rhonda Ross contracted for a remodel of their home in which Chinese-made drywall was used. When the drywall emitted harmful gasses, the Rosses filed a claim under their insurance policy. This claim was rejected under four exclusions: for faulty materials, latent defect, loss by corrosion, and loss by pollution. After the claim was denied, the Rosses sued Louisiana Citizens.

    In April 2010, the lower court granted a summary judgment, followed by a May, 2010 order dismissing the Rosses’ claims against Louisiana Citizens. The Rosses appealed this decision. In the court’s review, they agreed with Louisiana Citizens and the lower court on all counts. Although the Rosses maintained that the drywall was not defective (as it still functioned as drywall), the court ruled that its emission of sulfuric gases was a defect. Further, as it was in place for two years before this became evident, it was also a latent defect. Damage to the Rosses’ home consisted of corrosion damage caused by the pollutants in the drywall.

    The Rosses made an additional claim that since their policy covered smoke damage, this should be covered, as the harm was done by sulfuric gases. The court noted that the contract specifies “fumes or vapors from a boiler, furnace, or related equipment,” none of which apply in this case.

    Read the court’s decision

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

    The EEOC Targets Construction Industry For Heightened Enforcement

    May 15, 2023 —
    Seyfarth Synopsis: On January 10, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released for public comment its draft 2023-2027 Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”)—a document that will guide the Commission’s enforcement priorities for the next five years. The EEOC’s prior Strategic Plan described how it would pursue its enforcement goals. (See our earlier blog on the Strategic Plan here). The Strategic Enforcement Plan, on the other hand, describes what the EEOC’s enforcement priorities will be. Earlier actions by the EEOC suggested that it might be turning its attention to the construction industry. In the SEP, the EEOC makes its intentions explicit, putting the construction industry—and especially those receiving federal funding—squarely in its sights. History of the SEP The EEOC’s first SEP covered Fiscal Years 2013-2016 (the EEOC’s fiscal years begin on October 1) and identified six broad subject-matter priorities. The EEOC’s second SEP set the course for enforcement priorities for FY2017-2022. The latest proposed SEP, published in the Federal Register for comment for the first time, provides notable additional details that put the employer community on notice of the Commission’s intentions for FY2023-2027.[1] Reprinted courtesy of Meghan Douris, Seyfarth and Andrew Scroggins, Seyfarth Ms. Douris may be contacted at mdouris@seyfarth.com Mr. Scroggins may be contacted ascroggins@seyfarth.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas School System Goes to Court over Construction Defect

    December 30, 2013 —
    The Zapata County Independent School District filed a lawsuit against Satterfield and Pontikes, claiming construction defect in two schools and two gyms that the company built for the district, according to the Laredo Morning Times. The company built two elementary schools, Zapata South and Fidel & Andrea Villarreal, and the gyms were built at Zapata North and Arturo L. Benavides. The case is scheduled to reach the courtroom in January, 2014. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Your Construction Contract

    April 08, 2024 —
    Your construction contract is an important topic. What’s even more important is YOUR process for reviewing and negotiating construction contracts. Are you simply acting as a riverboat gambler willing to assume undue risk because you don’t value the investment in understanding what you are signing? If so, it becomes hard to complain about what you agreed to and signed when you chose NOT to invest in the process. Investing in the process means you are working with a construction attorney, you have an insurance broker that understands your industry, you have resources in place to ensure risk is negotiated and allocated, and you understand what risk you are assuming to make sure you are properly protecting and perfecting your rights, and transferring risk downstream. When it comes to construction contracts, there are really three approaches: 1. Riverboat Gambler. This is the “I’ll sign whatever you give me because I don’t want to lose the contract / revenue.” Under this approach, you are not worried about undue risk because you don’t value the investment in the next two approaches. Your thought process is that you’ll care about the risk when an issue pops up, i.e., the riverboat gambler. This is not an approach I’d recommend because it is contrary to the adage, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” This is simply a reactive approach to issues and risks. The other two approaches are more proactive and better suited to understand and manage risk. 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

    Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

    February 07, 2018 —
    In California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County (1/26/2018 – No. G054981), the Fourth Appellate District considered whether vicarious disqualification of a law firm is mandatory or discretionary where an attorney with a conflict joins a firm and the firm enacts an ethical screen to prevent transmission of confidential information between the new attorney and the rest of the firm. This case arose from an effort by the California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund (the “Fund”) to be reimbursed for workers’ compensation benefits advanced on behalf of the Healthcare Industry Self-Insurance Program (the “Program”). The Fund hired Nixon Peabody LLP (“Nixon Peabody”) to represent it in connection with this matter. In November 2013, represented by members of Nixon Peabody’s San Francisco office, the Fund filed a lawsuit naming 304 members of the Program as defendants. Approximately 170 defendants have since settled. Two of the non-settling defendants (“Moving Parties”), were represented by Michelman & Robinson, LLP (“M&R”). From approximately 2009 until February 1, 2017, attorney Andrew Selesnick served as Chair of M&R’s Health Care Department at the firm’s Los Angeles office, managing a team of attorneys who represented clients in the healthcare industry. Commencing in 2014, a team of four attorneys at M&R, including Selesnick, represented the Moving Parties and four other defendants, the latter of whom have since settled. Selesnick was actively involved, including participating in a confidential discussion pertaining to Moving Parties’ liability and damages and receiving many e-mails containing communications about the common defense of the remaining 170 defendants. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown Bonesteel and Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown Bonesteel Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of