BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness 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


    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    Almost Nothing Is Impossible

    Will Millennial’s Desire for Efficient Spaces Kill the McMansion?

    A Quick Checklist for Subcontractors

    Beverly Hills Voters Reject Plan for Enclave's Tallest Building

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to Best Lawyers in America© Orange County and as Attorneys of the Year 2018

    Justin Clark Joins Newmeyer & Dillion’s Walnut Creek Branch as its Newest Associate

    South African Building Industry in Line for More State Support

    Another Reminder to ALWAYS Show up for Court

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: ERIN CANNON-WELLS

    Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is Not an "Occurrence"

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    OSHA Investigating Bridge Accident Resulting in Construction Worker Fatality

    Design-build Trends, Challenges and Risk Mitigation

    Boston Contractor Faces More OSHA Penalties

    Is it the End of the Story for Redevelopment in California?

    Don’t Conspire to Build a Home…Wait…What?

    One-Upmanship by Contractors In Prevailing Wage Decision Leads to a Bad Result for All . . . Perhaps

    Home Buyer Disclosures, What’s Required and What Isn’t

    Insurer Must Defend and Indemnify Construction Defect Claims Under Iowa Law

    Landowners Try to Choke Off Casino's Water With 19th-Century Lawsuit

    Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

    New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice

    California Restricts Principles of “General” Personal Jurisdiction

    Colorado statutory “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”

    Summary Judgment for Insurer Reversed Based on Expert Opinion

    "Multiple Claims" Provisions on Contractor's Professional Liability Policy Creates a Trap for Policyholders

    North Dakota Universities Crumble as Oil Cash Pours In

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Questions to Texas Supreme Court on Concurrent Causation Doctrine

    Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

    Construction Jobs Keep Rising, with April Gain of 33,000

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Wrap Music to an Insurer’s Ears?”

    A Trivial Case

    Advice to Georgia Homeowners with Construction Defects

    Perovskite: The Super Solar Cells

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Indeed, You Just Design ‘Em”

    Construction Defect Leads to Death of Worker

    Falling Crime Rates Make Dangerous Neighborhoods Safe for Bidding Wars

    New Jersey Construction Worker Sentenced for Home Repair Fraud

    California Pipeline Disaster Brings More Scandal for PG&E

    Retainage: What Contractors Need to Know and Helpful Strategies

    OH Supreme Court Rules Against General Contractor in Construction Defect Coverage Dispute

    Will Claims By Contractors on Big Design-Build Projects Ever End?

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

    California Supreme Court Protects California Policyholders for Intentional Acts of Employees

    California Contractors: Amended Section 7141.5 Provides Important License Renewal Safety Net

    Giant Gas Pipeline Owner, Contractor in $900M Payment Battle

    Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements

    April 13, 2017 —
    OSHA requires employers to maintain safety records for a period of five years. The Occupational Safety and Health Act contains a six month statute of limitations for OSHA to issue citations to employers for violations. In an effort to close the gap between the five years employers are required to keep records and the six month citation window, the Obama Administration implemented the “Volks Rule,” making recordkeeping requirements a “continuing obligation” for employers and effectively extending the statute of limitations for violations of recordkeeping requirements from six months to five years. On March 22, 2017, the Senate approved a House Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 83) nullifying the “Volks Rule” and limiting the statute of limitations to six months for recordkeeping violations. President Trump signed the resolution nullifying the “Volks Rule” on April 3, 2017. The nullification appears to be in line with President Trump’s stated goal of generally eliminating governmental regulations. What Does This Mean for California Employers? California manages its own OSHA program, which generally follows the federal program, but is not always in lock-step with Federal OSHA. Cal/OSHA, under its current rules, may only cite employers for recordkeeping violations that occurred during the six months preceding an inspection or review of those records. To date, there has been no indication that California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) has plans to adopt the “Volks Rule.” Barring a change, California employers will continue to operate under the status quo and be required to maintain safety records for five years, but will only be exposed to citations for recordkeeping violations occurring within the last six months. Current Cal/OSHA Recordkeeping Requirements Cal/OSHA form 300 (also known as the “OSHA Log 300”) is used to record information about every work-related death and most work-related injuries that cannot be treated with onsite first aid (specific requirements can be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 14300 through 14300.48). Currently, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 14300.33 requires employers to retain OSHA Log 300 for a period of five years following the end of the calendar year during which the record was created, despite the fact that Cal/OSHA can only cite employers for failing to maintain such records for up to six months preceding an inspection. Looking to the Future Cal/OSHA is working on regulations that would require electronic submission of OSHA Log 300 records in California. This would bring Cal/OSHA more in line with Federal OSHA, which already requires electronic submission. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
    Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com

    Uniformity in Florida’s Construction Bond Laws Brings About Fairness for the Industry

    August 17, 2020 —
    Before Florida updated its laws for construction bonds, there were some significant differences between how liens and bond claims were litigated. Forms and procedures lacked uniformity that created unnecessary challenges for the construction industry and legal practitioners serving the industry. Now, more consistency among the laws should benefit contractors, as well as lower-tiered subcontractors and suppliers. Since the updates were instated in October 2019, some of the procedures and rules used for lien enforcement have been extended to bond claims, which may make it easier to resolve differences over payment and performance. That should come as a relief to local contractors and law firms, as well as to the numerous developers and construction companies based outside of Florida that operate in the state or are considering doing so. Florida is now the number one destination for new residents, especially from high-tax states, according to IRS data. With them come new homes, retail centers, offices, industrial space, roads and other infrastructure in what is now the third-most-populous state in the nation. Reprinted courtesy of Gary L. Brown, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Brown may be contacted at gbrown@kklaw.com

    #6 CDJ Topic: Construction Defect Legislative Developments

    December 30, 2015 —
    Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger discussed Right to Repair developments occurring in Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and Colorado in their article, “Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s ‘Right to Repair Statutes.” Read the full story... Texas also had changes that affected construction defect claims, as covered by David H. Fisk of Coleman & Logan PC: “Before filing a lawsuit or initiating an arbitration proceeding pertaining to a construction defect, a condominium association in Texas with eight or more units must now comply with the newly added Section 82.119 to Chapter 82 of the Texas Property Code. This is in addition to compliance with the Texas Residential Construction Liability Act (RCLA) and any preconditions included in the condominium association’s declarations.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Cape Town Seeks World Cup Stadium Construction Collusion Damages

    March 19, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- The City of Cape Town filed a civil damages claim against builders Aveng Ltd., Wilson Bayly Holmes-Ovcon Ltd. and Stefanutti Stocks Holdings Ltd. for colluding on a tender for a stadium built for the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup. The claim for at least 428 million rand ($35 million) will be heard in the North Gauteng High Court, Ian Neilson, Cape Town’s executive deputy mayor, said by phone on Monday. The amount claimed is subject to change, he said. Antitrust authorities fined 15 builders, including the trio facing the Cape Town claim, a total of 1.5 billion rand in June 2013 for rigging contracts for projects including the construction of stadiums for the 2010 World Cup hosted by South Africa. Aveng was fined 307 million rand, WBHO 311 million rand and Stefanutti 307 million rand. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Janice Kew, Bloomberg
    Ms. Kew may be contacted at jkew4@bloomberg.net

    Insurer Waives Objection to Appraiser's Partiality by Waiting Until Appraisal Issued

    October 21, 2024 —
    The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the insurer's objections on partiality grounds to the insured's appraiser. Biscayne Beach Club Condominium Association, Inc. v. Westchester Surpus Lines Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19663 (11th Cir. Aug. 6. 2024). Storms damaged buildings at Biscayne Beach Club Condominium. Biscayne Beach filed claims with its insurer, Westchester. Unsatisfied with Westchester's payments, Biscayne Beach sued. Westchester then invoked the appraisal provision in the policy. The district court abated the action so the parties could pursue appraisal. Biscayne Beach appointed Lester Martin, its public adjuster, as its appraiser on a 10 percent contingency fee. Westchester objected because Martinez's retainer created a conflict of interest that would hinder his impartiality. Biscayne Beach then retained Blake Pyka as its appraiser. Westchester appointed its appraiser and and umpire was selected by the parties' two appraisers. 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

    Let the 90-Day Countdown Begin

    February 11, 2019 —
    Most contractors are diligent about making sure that they pay their licensing fees, renew worker’s compensation insurance, and maintain the required bonds. What may be less obvious is how critically important it is to have current company personnel listed on the company’s licensing records with the Contractor’s State Licensing Board. Only personnel listed on the CSLB’s records are authorized to act on behalf of the licensee with respect to CSLB-related matters. Although this may sound simple enough, all such personnel will be required to comply with fingerprinting (and background check) requirements before their applications to be added to the company’s licensing records can be approved. No new personnel will be associated with the licensee until their application is determined to be acceptable and all other requirements are met. Unforeseeable processing delays could result in this new personnel being unable to timely act on behalf of the licensee. Reprinted courtesy of Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury and Robert A. James, Pillsbury Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Deadlines Count for Construction Defects in Florida

    November 06, 2013 —
    Scott Kiernan, an attorney in the Orlando offices of Becker & Poliakoff, writing on their Florida Construction Law Authority site notes that “nothing lasts forever, especially the right to sue for building defects.” Under Florida law, according to Mr. Kiernan, the time in which a condominium association can file a construction defect is “only 4 years from the time that the Condominium Association knew or should have known of the defect(s).” However, for defects that aren’t even discovered during those first four years, there is a ten-year period where claims for latent defects can become the subject of a construction defect claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

    February 19, 2019 —
    The Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision yesterday finding no coverage for fire damage to a building is a cautionary tale for companies acquiring other companies. Erie Ins. Exch. v. EPC MD 15, LLC, 2019 WL 238168 (Va. Jan. 17, 2019). In that case, Erie Insurance issued a property insurance policy to EPC. The policy covered EPC only and did not cover any subsidiaries of EPC. EPC then acquired the sole member interest in Cyrus Square, LLC. Following the acquisition, fire damaged a building that Cyrus Square owned. EPC sought coverage under its property insurance policy. Because the policy did not cover Cyrus Square, EPC argued that a provision extending coverage to “newly acquired buildings” applied, contending that EPC had newly acquired Cyrus Square’s building by virtue of becoming the sole member interest in the LLC. Based on the law relative to LLCs and its interpretation of the policy, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled against EPC. It found that although EPC had acquired Cyrus Square, it had not “newly acquired” the building and so the “newly acquired buildings” coverage extension did not apply. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of