BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs 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


    Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage

    Lithium for Batteries from Geothermal Brine

    Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit

    Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018

    Construction Defect Claims are on the Rise Due to Pandemic-Related Issues

    California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

    Top 10 Cases of 2019

    Proximity Trace Used to Monitor, Maintain Social Distancing on $1.9-Billion KCI Airport Project

    Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

    Comply with your Insurance Policy's Conditions Precedent (Post-Loss Obligations)

    Pay-if-Paid Clauses, Nasty, but Enforceable

    General Contractor Cited for Safety Violations after Worker Fatality

    Construction Firm Sues Town over Claims of Building Code Violations

    No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    Berlin Lawmakers Get a New Green Workspace

    North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”

    Hurricane Milton Barrels Toward Florida With 180 MPH Winds

    The Prompt Payment Act Obligation is Not Triggered When the Owner Holds Less Retention from the General Contractor

    Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

    Is the Obsession With Recordable Injury Rates a Deadly Safety Distraction?

    Florida Federal Court Reinforces Principle That Precise Policy Language Is Required Before An Insurer Can Deny Coverage Based On An Exclusion

    How to Lose Your Contractor’s License in 90 Days (or Less): California and Louisiana

    Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act Of 2020: What You Need to Know

    Recent Bad Faith Decisions in Florida Raise Concerns

    What is the True Value of Rooftop Solar Panels?

    General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

    Incorrect Information Provided on Insurance Application Defeats Claim for Coverage

    Wilke Fleury Secures Bid Protest Denial

    COVID-19 Business Closure and Continuity Compliance Resource

    Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado

    North Carolina Learns More Lessons From Latest Storm

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael Logan and Associate Christian Romaguera Obtain Voluntary Dismissal in Favor of Construction Company Under the Vertical Immunity Doctrine

    Stay of Coverage Case Appropriate While Court Determines Arbitrability of Dispute

    Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage Of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/10/23) – Wobbling Real Estate, Booming (and Busting) Construction, and Eye-Watering Insurance Premiums

    Extreme Rainfall Is Becoming More Frequent and Deadly

    Insureds Survive Summary Judgment on Coverage for Hurricane Loss

    Pinterest Nixes Big San Francisco Lease Deal in Covid Scaleback

    The Utility of Arbitration Agreements in the Construction Industry

    The Secret to an OSHA Inspection

    Power of Workers Compensation Immunity on Construction Project

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

    No Coverage For Wind And Flood Damage Suffered From Superstorm Sandy

    Ready, Fire, Aim: The Importance of Targeting Your Delay Notices

    Umbrella Policy Must Drop Down to Assist with Defense

    Hurricane Ian: Florida Expedites Road Work as Damage Comes Into Focus

    Defense Owed for Product Liability Claims That Do Not Amount to Faulty Workmanship
    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

    Liability Cap Does Not Exclude Defense Costs for Loss Related to Deep Water Horizon

    May 01, 2019 —
    The Texas Supreme Court found that Lloyd's endorsement imposing a cap on liability for a joint venture did not exclude coverage for defense costs. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Houston Cas. Co. et al., 2019 Texas LEXIS 53 (Texas Jan. 25 2019j. Pursuant to a joint venture agreement, Anadarko held a 25% ownership interest in the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico. When the well blew out, numerous third parties filed claims against BP entities and Anadarko. Many of the claims were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL). The MDL court granted a declaratory judgment finding BP and Anadarko jointly and severally liable. BP and Anadarko reached a settlement in which Anadarko agreed to transfer its 25% ownership interest to BP and pay BP $4 billion. In exchange, BP agreed to release any claims it had against Anadarko and to indemnify Anadarko against all other liabilities arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. BP did not agree, however, to cover Anadarko's defense costs. Anadarko had a policy through Lloyd's. The policy provided excess-liability coverage limited to $150 million per occurrence. Lloyd's paid Anadarko $37.5 million (25% of the $150 million limit) based upon Anadarko 25% ownership in the joint venture. Anadarko argued that Lloyd's still owed all of Anadarko's defense expenses, up to the $150 million limit. 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

    2015 California Construction Law Update

    December 31, 2014 —
    Over 2,200 bills were introduced during the second and final year of the 2013-2014 legislative session of which 931 were signed into law. For the design and construction industry, the end of the second session, like the end of the first session, saw a number of new prevailing wage bills signed into law, which again reflected the strong Democratic majorities in both the Assembly and Senate. The end of the second session also saw the enactment of laws consolidating several existing design-build authorization sections and extending the 5% cap on retention for public works projects. 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

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

    February 16, 2017 —
    In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages. In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages. Reprinted courtesy of Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Big Changes and Trends in the Real Estate Industry

    February 06, 2023 —
    In my practice, I am fortunate enough to attend a real estate conferences on a regular basis. And, without exception, we always get a run down on hot trends/cases from industry leaders. Some issues that are being attacked in hot cases/trends are:
    • Are the typical commission structures – e.g., the typical 5% to 6% divided in half – fair or creating an antitrust issue?
    • Is MLS commission anti-competitive and artificially inflates commission rates?
    • Can a buyer’s agent advertise/represent that it is working for its client for free, as generally happens and has been allowed?
    • What is the impact of agent only showing their clients houses with higher typical commissions, like 6%? And how is this being advertised, pushed for and manipulated contrary to the interests of consumers?
    There are currently some big, national cases that will likely bring about big changes in the entire national real estate community with regard to how real estate brokers’/agents’ commissions are determined, explained and advertised. These cases revolve around antitrust and alleged conspiracy claims – asserting that the use of commissions in today real estate markets are creating an overcharging to consumers and artificially manipulation of the market. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rachel Mihai, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
    Ms. Mihai may be contacted at rmihai@bremerwhyte.com

    Delaware River Interstate Bridge Shut to Assess Truss Fracture

    January 26, 2017 —
    The Delaware River Bridge, which runs between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, was shut down indefinitely over the Jan. 22-23 weekend, after a large fracture was discovered in the bridge that connects the turnpikes of the two states. The fracture on a steel truss below the bridge deck on the Pennsylvania side was discovered during a routine check as part of a painting operation. Steel plates were installed to temporarily reconnect the fracture and stabilize the 1.5-mile bridge, which is located in Bucks County on I-276 and accommodates 42,000 vehicles a day. As engineers assess how the damage will impact the entire bridge, a sample from the fractured truss was sent to a forensic lab to determine the cause of the crack. A high-definition video survey is being used to monitor the bridge. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Rice, ENR
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricej@enr.com

    Commercial Real Estate in 2023: A Snapshot

    January 17, 2023 —
    As we close out the last remaining weeks of 2022, all eyes look ahead to 2023. Below is a quick snapshot highlighting three trends and predictions that may continue to shape the commercial real estate landscape in 2023.
    1. Office space and the digital economy present attractive investment opportunities and potential. Even with all of the chatter about office vacancies during the last three years, according to Moody’s Analytics, “it’s important to note that none of the regions across the U.S. have seen office vacancy rates dip below their pre-pandemic Q4 2019 levels.” This might be due to creative and reimagined office spaces as the return to office continues. The hybrid work format and flexibility in spaces will continue in 2023.
    2. Data analytics and Proptech will continue to play a larger role, allowing property owners and tenants to collaborate to provide more efficiency, whether to achieve sustainability goals or leverage technology like immersive experiences to entice tenants to new spaces. An increase in demand for technology to solve issues will most likely continue in commercial real estate.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Adam J. Weaver, Pillsbury
    Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com

    Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”

    July 10, 2018 —
    On June 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided the case of Orchard Hill Building Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Court of Appeals vacated the decision of the District Court granting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Orchard Hill Building Company’s (Orchard) complaint that the Corps’ jurisdictional determination erroneously found that the waters at issue were “jurisdictional waters” under the Clean Water Act (CWA) subject to the Corps’ jurisdiction. Acknowledging that the Corps and EPA had promulgated a new rule re-defining “waters of the United States” in 2015—which is now being challenged in the courts—the Court of Appeals noted that this case is controlled by the pre-2015 definition of “waters of the United States.” The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Corps, directing it to determine if there was a significant nexus, as required. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    U.S. Supreme Court Allows Climate Change Lawsuits to Proceed in State Court

    May 01, 2023 —
    Washington, D.C. (April 25, 2023) - On Monday, April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeals by several major energy companies that sought to remove lawsuits filed by state and local governments from state court into federal court. The Court’s certiorari denials reject companies’ appeals in five separate cases, which involved claims brought by municipalities in Colorado, Maryland, California, Hawaii, and Rhode Island. Each municipality claims that it has been harmed by the effects of climate change, allegedly attributed to the companies’ carbon emissions. The Court’s denials effectively allow the lawsuits to continue in state court, often seen as favorable for plaintiffs due to a greater potential for jury trials and associated damages awards than might be available in federal court. Following a 2021 Supreme Court ruling in a related case that granted the companies an additional chance to argue that their cases should be heard in federal court, the lower federal appeals courts in each of the five cases concluded that the companies had not established sufficient grounds to establish proper venue and jurisdiction in federal court. The Supreme Court’s April 24 denial leaves those decisions unaltered, allowing the lawsuits to continue in state court for further consideration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of George Leahy, Lewis Brisbois