BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    Construction Costs Up

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    U.S. State Adoption of the National Electrical Code

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    China Home Glut May Worsen as Developers Avoid Price Drop

    Steel-Fiber Concrete Link Beams Perform Well in Tests

    WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals

    Hospital Settles Lawsuit over Construction Problems

    Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

    Is Ohio’s Buckeye Lake Dam Safe?

    Two More Lawsuits Filed Over COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

    Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

    The Importance of Retrofitting Existing Construction to Meet Sustainability Standards

    The DOL Claims Most Independent Contractors Are Employees

    Michigan Claims Engineers’ Errors Prolonged Corrosion

    Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

    Liquidated Damages: Too High and It’s a Penalty. Too Low and You’re Out of Luck.

    Manhattan Developer Wants Claims Dismissed in Breach of Contract Suit

    Municipal Ordinances Create Additional Opportunities for the Defense of Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    Late Notice Kills Insured's Claim for Damage Due to Hurricane

    No Signature, No Problem: Texas Court Holds Contractual Subrogation Waiver Still Enforceable

    Keller Group Fires Two Executives in Suspected Australia Profits Reporting Fraud

    Top Five Legal Mistakes in Construction

    Augmented and Mixed Reality in Construction

    2021 2Q Cost Report: Industry Execs Believe Recovery Is in Full Swing

    Top 10 Hurricane Preparedness Practices for Construction Sites

    Homeowner Alleges Pool Construction Is Defective

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

    Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging

    Pollution Exclusion Prevents Coverage for Injury Caused by Insulation

    California to Require Disclosure of Construction Defect Claims

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    The Reptile Theory in Practice

    Ruling Finds Builder and Owners at Fault in Construction Defect Case

    Super Lawyers Selects Haight Lawyers for Its 2024 Southern California Rising Stars List

    A Good Examination of Fraud, Contract and Negligence Per Se

    Gilbane Project Exec Completes His Mission Against the Odds

    Benefit of the Coblentz Agreement and Consent Judgment

    No Subrogation, Contribution Rights for Carrier Defending Construction Defect Claim

    Mass-Timber Furnished Apartments Fare Well in Fire Tests

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    New York vs. Miami: The $50 Million Penthouse Battle From Zaha Hadid

    Court of Appeals Upholds Default Judgment: Serves as Reminder to Respond to Lawsuits in a Timely Manner

    Florida District Court Finds That “Unrelated” Design Errors Sufficient to Trigger “Related Claims” Provision in Architects & Engineers Policy

    Lewis Brisbois Listed on Leopard Solutions Top 10 Law Firm Index

    The Biggest Thing Keeping Young Homebuyers out of the Market Isn't Student Debt

    Housing Advocacy Group Moved to Dissolve New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing
    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. Leveraging 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

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 5% in Year to June

    August 26, 2015 —
    Home prices in 20 U.S. cities climbed 5 percent in June from the same month a year earlier, a sign of more progress in the housing market. The increase in the S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values matched the year-over-year gains in the prior three months, the group said Tuesday in New York. The median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 5.1 percent year-over-year advance. Nationally, prices rose 4.5 percent. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg

    Montana Trial Court Holds That Youths Have Standing to Bring Constitutional Claims Against State Government For Alleged Climate Change-Related Harms

    September 18, 2023 —
    On August 14, 2023, in a “landmark” ruling, a Montana state court held that youth plaintiffs had standing to assert constitutional claims against the State of Montana, its governor and state agencies for “ignoring” the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on climate change. Held v. State of Montana, Cause No. CDV-020-307 (1st Judicial Dist. Ct., Lewis & Clark Cty., Mt.). Agreeing with the plaintiffs, the court concluded that a limitation in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which prohibited the state from considering climate impacts when issuing permits for energy projects, violated the plaintiffs’ right under the state constitution to a “clean and healthful environment.” MEPA, enacted in 1971, states that its purposes include “provid[ing] for the adequate review of state actions in order to ensure that . . . environmental attributes are fully considered by the legislature in enacting laws to fulfill constitutional obligations . . . .” In 2011, the legislature amended the statute to curtail the scope of environmental reviews. Under the so-called MEPA limitation, Montana agencies cannot consider “an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state’s borders.” Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201(2)(a). In 2023, the legislature added a provision that eliminated equitable remedies (i.e., the ability to “vacate, void, or delay a lease, permit, license, certificate, authorization, or other entitlement or authority”) for litigants who “claim that [an] environmental review is inadequate based in whole or in part upon greenhouse gas emissions and impacts to the climate in Montana or beyond Montana’s borders . . . .” Id. § 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii). Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP and Julia Castanzo, White and Williams LLP Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Castanzo may be contacted at castanzoj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

    July 06, 2020 —
    The Delaware Supreme Court, in a rare split opinion, affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Request to Change Trial Settings in favor of all defendants, including a major automotive manufacturer represented by White and Williams LLP, in a mesothelioma case with a young decedent who had an alleged economic loss claim exceeding $9,000,000, in Shaw v. American Friction, Inc. et al., No. 86, 2019. This decision operates to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims based on their failure to meet Delaware’s strict expert deadlines and establish a prima facie case under Texas law. Plaintiffs’ Complaint invoked the application of Texas substantive law and alleged that multiple manufacturers were negligent and strictly liable for failing to warn the decedent of the alleged dangers posed by the use of asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposures from defendants’ products caused Mr. Shaw’s disease and subsequent death. In 2007, Texas instituted its now well-known causation requirement, which requires the “dose” of asbestos exposure from each defendant’s products to be quantified by an expert. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765, 773 (Tex. 2007). Prior to decedent’s death, Plaintiffs’ counsel deposed decedent and his father for product identification purposes. During the depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to obtain the necessary factual information from his clients for an expert to be able to opine as to alleged exposure doses from any defendant’s product. Despite lacking the requisite information for a prima facie case under Texas law, Plaintiffs sought and were given placement in an expedited trial setting, which had strict, defined deadlines. Reprinted courtesy of Christian Singewald, White and Williams LLP and Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    2018 Spending Plan Boosts Funding for Affordable Housing

    April 11, 2018 —
    On March 23, President Trump signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, a $1.3 trillion spending package that includes a 12.5% increase in low-income housing tax credit allocations over the next four years, along with funding increases for several affordable housing programs. This is welcome news to affordable housing developers who have been facing funding gaps as a result of reductions in the corporate tax rate under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in late 2017, which led to reduced pricing from equity investors. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Emily Bias, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
    Ms. Bias may be contacted at emily.bias@pillsburylaw.com

    William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

    June 26, 2014 —
    Big Builder’s Les Shaver reported that William Lyon Homes has acquired Polygon Northwest Company, “the largest private home builder in the [Pacific Northwest] region,” for “approximately $520 million.” "Polygon Northwest Company brings an attractive level consistency to William Lyon Homes with a steady average of 57 homes per month and a portfolio of communities that includes a nice product mix of single family detached [80 percent] and attached product [20 percent]," Catherine LaFemina, director of business development in the Seattle market for Metrostudy, told Big Builder. "Based on the trailing 12 months of home closings, [June 2013 to May 2014], Lyon’s acquisition of Polygon will increase the volume of homes being delivered by 50 percent to an average monthly volume of about 115 homes per month." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court of Appeals Confirms that King County Superior Court’s Jury Selection Process Satisfies Due Process Requirements

    December 04, 2023 —
    Raymond Budd developed mesothelioma after working with a drywall product called “joint compound” from 1962 to 1972. He sued Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. and others for damages, contending that the company’s joint compound caused his illness. A jury returned a verdict in Budd’s favor and awarded him nearly $13.5 million. Kaiser appealed, claiming (1) insufficient randomness in the jury-selection process, (2) erroneous transcription of expert testimony, (3) lack of proximate causation, (4) lack of medical causation, (5) an improper jury instruction on defective design, (6) improper exclusion of sexual battery and marital discord evidence, (7) improper admission of post-exposure evidence, (8) improper exclusion of regulatory provisions, and (9) a failure to link its product to Budd’s disease. The Court of Appeals, Division 1, affirmed the verdict in favor of Budd. Though all of the nine bases for error raised by Kaiser merit discussion, the jury-selection process issue is most probative here. Kaiser made three challenges against the jury selection process. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

    Disputes Over Arbitrator Qualifications: The Northern District of California Offers Some Guidance

    August 10, 2021 —
    The selection of an arbitration panel can often lead to disputes between the parties regarding things like whether a particular candidate is qualified, whether a challenge to an arbitrator’s qualifications can be addressed pre-award and whether a party that names an unqualified arbitrator should lose the opportunity to name a replacement. In Public Risk Innovations v. Amtrust Financial Services, No. 21-cv-03573, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129464 (N.D. Ca. July 12, 2021), the court provided answers on all three of these issues. In Amtrust, the parties filed cross-motions to compel arbitration. Although both parties agreed the dispute was arbitrable, they disagreed about whether Public Risk Innovations, Solutions and Management’s (PRISM) arbitrator was qualified under the terms of the applicable contract. In seeking to have PRISM’s arbitrator disqualified, Amtrust argued that he: (1) was not a “current or former official of an insurance or reinsurance company”; and (2) was not “disinterested.” Amtrust also argued that because PRISM named an unqualified arbitrator (and presumably the time to appoint had passed), PRISM should be deemed to have failed to select an arbitrator as required by the contract and that Amtrust had the right to select a second arbitrator of its choice. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin K. Fortescue, White and Williams
    Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com

    Excess Must Defend After Primary Improperly Refuses to Do So

    August 13, 2014 —
    The excess insurer had a duty to defend after the primary carrier improperly refused its defense obligations. IMG Worldwide, Inc. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13703 (6th Cir. July 15, 2014). IMG was sued for over $300,000,000 for alleged fraud, conversion, civil theft and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act (FDUTPA). The lawsuit stemmed from a real estate development project. The plaintiffs had invested in the project and alleged that the developer had sold them undeveloped properties with the promise they would be developed. IMG was a consultant on the project and also licensed to the developer the use of the IMG name and logo in marketing materials. IMG had no contractual obligation to actually develop the property or finance the project. IMG sought coverage from its primary carrier, Great Divide, and from its excess carrier, Westchester. Both denied coverage and refused to defend. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com