BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnesses
    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


    “Unwinnable”: Newark Trial Team Obtains Unanimous “No Cause” Verdict in Challenging Matter on Behalf of NYC Mutual Housing Association

    Homebuyers Aren't Sweating the Fed

    Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)

    Coverage Found For Cleanup of Superfund Site Despite Pollution Exclusion

    The New Jersey Theme Park Where Kids’ Backhoe Dreams Come True

    Contrasting Expert Opinions Result in Denial of Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

    New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series

    Prime Contractor & Surety’s Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Miller Act Lawsuit

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    Manhattan Luxury Condos Sit on Market While Foreign Buyers Wait

    You Don’t Have To Be a Consumer to Assert a FDUTPA Claim

    Insured's Failure to Prove Entire Collapse of Building Leads to Dismissal

    City Potentially Liable for Cost Overrun on Not-to-Exceed Public Works Contract

    Court Affirms Duty to Defend Additional Insured Contractor

    A Place to Study Eternity: Building the Giant Magellan Telescope

    NY Pay-to-Play Charges Dropped Against LPCiminelli Executive As Another Pleads Guilty

    Lasso Needed to Complete Vegas Hotel Implosion

    Architect Responds to Defect Lawsuit over Defects at Texas Courthouse

    “Over? Did you say ‘over’?”

    Deescalating Hyper Escalation

    ISO Proposes New Designated Premises Endorsement in Response to Hawaii Decision

    Unlocking the Potential of AI and Chat GBT in Construction Management

    New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment, Dismissal of Labor Law §240(1) Claim Against Municipal Entities

    Big Bertha Lawsuits—Hitachi Zosen Weighs In

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/23/23) – Distressed Prices, Carbon Removal and Climate Change

    Manhattan Bargain: Condos for Less Than $3 Million

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 3: Standard Form Policy Exclusions

    Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Against Contractor and Performance Bond Surety on Contractor's Differing Site Conditions Claim

    Luxury Villa Fraudsters Jailed for Madeira Potato Field Scam

    Reminder: Just Being Incorporated Isn’t Enough

    School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty

    Staffing Company Not Entitled to Make a Claim Against a Payment Bond and Attorneys’ Fees on State Public Works Payment Bonds

    Prior Occurrence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defects

    How to Cool Down Parks in Hot Cities

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Slower Pace in May

    Snooze You Lose? Enforcement of Notice and Timing Provisions

    CISA Clarifies – Construction is Part of Critical Infrastructure Activities

    Mitigate Construction Risk Through Use of Contingency

    California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

    Insureds Survive Motion to Dismiss Civil Authority Claim

    Allegations Versus “True Facts”: Which Govern the Duty to Defend? Bonus! A Georgia Court Clears Up What the Meaning of “Is” Is

    Cuomo Proposes $1.7 Billion Property-Tax Break for New York

    School Blown Down by Wind Still Set to Open on Schedule

    EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

    Nailing Social Media: The Key to Generating Leads for Construction Companies

    White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions

    Robinson+Cole’s Amicus Brief Adopted and Cited by Massachusetts’s High Court

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    California’s Wildfire Dilemma: Put Houses or Forests First?
    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

    Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania

    August 31, 2020 —
    The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded, in Nautilus Insurance Co. v. 200 Christian Street Partners, LLC., that a duty to defend is triggered when product-related allegations are pled in connection with a claim for defective construction. In Nautilus, the coverage dispute arose out of two independent underlying lawsuits in which homeowners alleged that the homes built by 200 Christian Street Partners (“Christian Street”) were defectively constructed. Christian Street tendered the claim to its insurer, Nautilus Insurance Co. (“Nautilus”), for defense and indemnity.1 Nautilus filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend Christian Street in the underlying actions.2 Specifically, Nautilus asserted that it was not required to provide a defense in the underlying actions because Pennsylvania law does not consider faulty workmanship to constitute an “occurrence” and, therefore, to trigger the policy’s insuring agreement and the insurer’s duty to defend.3 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stacy M. Manobianca, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Manobianca may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com

    SNC-Lavalin’s Former Head of Construction Pleads Guilty to Bribery, Money Laundering

    October 01, 2014 —
    Riadh Ben Aissa, a former SNC-Lavalin executive, “pleaded guilty to charges including bribery and money laundering in Switzerland, according to a court filing released on Wednesday,” reported the Wall Street Journal. SNC-Lavalin “issued a separate statement acknowledging the court's acceptance of Mr. Ben Aissa's guilty pleas, adding it was recognized as ‘an injured party’ in the case and would recover an unspecified amount of money from him.” Chief Executive Robert Card stated, “SNC-Lavalin's goal is nothing less than to set a new standard for clean business in the engineering and construction industry,” as quoted by the Wall Street Journal. “We've adopted a zero-tolerance policy for ethics violations of any kind. We have the right people in place and systems and procedures which are designed to protect the company and its stakeholders from future fraudulent actions." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents

    August 13, 2014 —
    Delaware corporations may be required to turn over internal documents of directors and officers, including those of in-house counsel, where the factors enumerated in Garner v. Walfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970) weigh in favor of disclosure. In a July 23, 2014 decision of first-impression, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, that the Garner doctrine applies to plenary shareholder/corporation disputes, as well as to books and records inspection actions under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Garner doctrine provides that a shareholder may invade the corporation’s attorney-client privilege in order to prove fiduciary breaches by those in control of the corporation upon a showing of good cause. The non-exhaustive list of factors by which a finding of good cause should be tested are: “(i) the number of shareholders and the percentage of stock they represent; (ii) the bona fides of the shareholders; (iii) the nature of the shareholders’ claim and whether it is obviously colorable; (iv) the apparent necessity or desirability of the shareholders having the information and the availability of it from other sources; (v) whether, if the shareholders’ claim is of wrongful action by the corporation, it is of action criminal, or illegal but not criminal, or of doubtful legality; (vi) whether the communication is of advice concerning the litigation itself; (vii) the extent to which the communication is identified versus the extent to which the shareholders are blindly fishing; and (viii) the risk of revelation of trade secrets or other information in whose confidentiality the corporation has an interest for independent reasons.” Reprinted courtesy of Marc S. Casarino, White and Williams LLP and Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.K. Puts Tax on Developers to Fund Safer Apartment Blocks

    March 08, 2021 —
    The U.K. announced an extra 3.5 billion pounds ($4.8 billion) toward the cost of stripping dangerous cladding from apartment blocks in England, with a new tax on developers from next year to help cover the costs. Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick said the new cash will add to a previously announced 1.6 billion-pound “safety fund” to remove the material, which was blamed for the deaths of 72 people in a catastrophic fire at London’s Grenfell Tower in 2017. A new tax will be introduced for U.K. residential developers in 2022 to raise at least 2 billion pounds over the next decade to ensure homebuilders “make a fair contribution” to solving the problem, Jenrick told the House of Commons on Wednesday. Reprinted courtesy of Emily Ashton, Bloomberg and Olivia Konotey-Ahulu, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    After Sixty Years, Subcontractors are Back in the Driver’s Seat in Bidding on California Construction Projects

    September 22, 2016 —
    For almost the last sixty years, the standard for bidding on California construction projects has been governed by the landmark case of Drennan v. Star Paving (1958) 51 Cal.2d 409; which generally states that the contractor bidding to perform work for a project owner is entitled to rely on the bids of subcontractors in formulating its own bid to do the work. Under the equitable legal doctrine of “promissory estoppel”, which serves as the foundation of the Drennan case, even though there was no actual “contract” between the contractor and subcontractor at the time of bid, the contractor was entitled to enforce the subcontractor’s bid in reliance on this doctrine. For bidding purposes, promissory estoppel serves as an equitable substitute for an actual contract. The courts have, since that time, allowed promissory estoppel to act as a substitute for the contract in public bidding because, in equity, when a contractor “reasonably” relies on a subcontractor’s bid in formulating its own bid, it would be unjust to allow the subcontractor to withdraw a bid on which the contractor had relied in submitting its own successful bid. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Implications for Industry as Supreme Court Curbs EPA's Authority

    August 15, 2022 —
    The U.S. Supreme Court has limited the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions, and though the court’s opinion referred to a fairly narrow provision within the Clean Air Act, the ruling potentially places broad restrictions on the ability of federal agencies to enact regulations to address the climate crisis, according to several sources. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record and Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.S. Construction Value Flat at End of Summer

    December 04, 2013 —
    The Census Bureau has released it numbers for the value of construction put in place for September and October, and while further numbers are forthcoming, this current report shows little change. The value of construction dropped a miniscule 0.3% in September, however, residential construction actually showed a slight increase. October then showed a 0.8% increase, but then private residential construction dropped by 0.5%. In all, however, by the end of October, private residential spending was up 17.8% over the prior year. As with other sectors of public spending, public residential spending dropped 3.4% from the prior year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Loud Boom, But No Serious Injuries in World Trade Center Accident

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Wall Street Journal reports that nearly twenty tons of steel fell forty stories at the World Trade Center site on February 16. One person was checked by medical personnel. One person who works in the Financial District said it was “almost like thunder.” Frank Pensabene, one of the ironworkers on the site said that after “loud boom,” “all hell broke loose.” The steel beams and cables fell onto a flatbed truck, which was not occupied at the time.

    Read the full story…

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