BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut ada design 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 Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    White and Williams Elects Four Lawyers to Partnership, Promotes Six Associates to Counsel

    Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

    Colorado Court Holds No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claim

    Scott Saylin Expands Employment Litigation and Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears

    Funding the Self-Insured Retention (SIR)

    Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

    In Florida, Exculpatory Clauses Do Not Need Express Language Referring to the Exculpated Party's Negligence

    Coronavirus and Contract Obligations

    Louisiana Couple Sues over Defects in Foreclosed Home

    Water Damage Sub-Limit Includes Tear-Out Costs

    Contractor Entitled to Defense for Alleged Faulty Workmanship of Subcontractor

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    Failing to Adopt a Comprehensive Cyber Plan Can Lead to Disaster

    CDJ’s #2 Topic of the Year: Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 Tex. LEXIS 39 (Tex. Jan.17, 2014)

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces Jessica Garland as Its Newest Partner

    Thanks for My 6th Year Running as a Construction Litigation Super Lawyer

    U.S. Steel Invoking Carnegie’s Legacy in Revival Strategy

    Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    You’ve Been Suspended – Were You Ready?

    Anthony Garasi, Jared Christensen and August Hotchkin are Recognized as Nevada Legal Elite

    The Great Fallacy: If Builders Would Just Build It Right There Would Be No Construction Defect Litigation

    No Coverage for Homeowner Named as Borrower in Policy but Not as Insured

    Revised Cause Identified for London's Wobbling Millennium Bridge After Two Decades

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    No Coverage for Defects in Subcontrator's Own Work

    Remodel Leads to Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Elon Musk's Boring Co. Is Feuding With Texas Over a Driveway

    Lack of Workers Holding Back Building

    Growing Optimism Among Home Builders

    Andrea DeField Recognized In 2024 List of Influential Business Women By South Florida Business Journal

    Proving Contractor Licensure in California. The Tribe Has Spoken

    Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

    COVID-19 Impacts on Subcontractor Default Insurance and Ripple Effects

    Workers Hurt in Casino Floor Collapse

    Existing U.S. Home Sales Rise to Second-Highest Since 2007

    Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill: Overview of Key Provisions

    California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

    Navigating Abandonment of a Construction Project

    National Engineering and Public Works Roadshow Highlights Low Battery Seawall Restoration Project in Charleston

    Mark Van Wonterghem To Serve as Senior Forensic Consultant in the Sacramento Offices of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.

    Good News on Prices for Some Construction Materials

    Boston Nonprofit Wants to Put Grown-Ups in Dorms

    Pensacola Bridge Repair Plan Grows as Inspectors Uncover More Damage

    Obama Says Keystone Decision May Be Announced in Weeks or Months

    Does a Landlord’s Violation of the Arizona Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Constitute Negligence Per Se?

    Gary Bague Elected Chairman of ALFA International’s Board of Directors

    Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

    Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

    Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost
    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

    Judge Sentences Roofing Contractor Owner in Florida PPP Fraud Case

    July 25, 2021 —
    A federal judge in Fort Myers, Fla., sentenced Casey David Crowther, 35, the owner of a successful Florida roofing contracting company, to 37 months in prison for using fictitious employee lists to obtain a $2.7-million federal pandemic-aid loan and then purchasing a $689,000 boat with the funds. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Disappearing Data: Avoid Losing Electronic Information to Avoid Losing the Case

    February 01, 2022 —
    It happens: A contractor on a delayed project ends up in litigation over liquidated damages, but the key communications regarding delays and approvals were sent and received by the project manager on a mobile device using text messages and personal email accounts. Unfortunately, the project manager left the company a year ago on bad terms and has changed phones. The information that would serve to mitigate the contractor’s liability has disappeared. With better awareness and policies for capturing and managing electronic information, this is avoidable. Proactive and effective management of electronically stored information on construction projects can not only reduce costs and discovery disputes should litigation arise but can also provide critical evidence in reducing liability exposure in such disputes. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as well as most state rules, which often mirror federal rules), provide for sanctions if a party fails to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) that should have been preserved in anticipation of litigation but is lost due to the failure to take reasonable steps to preserve it. Even in arbitration, where discovery and disclosure obligations are often more limited than in the court setting, preservation of ESI can help strengthen claims and defenses, avoiding accusations of spoliation that can derail a case. Arbitrators can also fashion appropriate sanctions for destruction of relevant evidence, not to mention the impact that apparent spoliation can have on a party’s credibility. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel C. Wennogle & Jennifer Knight Lang, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Ms. Lang may be contacted at jennifer.lang@moyewhite.com Mr. Wennogle may be contacted at daniel.wennogle@moyewhite.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Oklahoma Finds Policy Can Be Assigned Post-Loss

    April 26, 2021 —
    Oklahoma joined the majority of court in finding that after a loss occurs, the insured can assign the policy to another. Johnson v. CSAA Gen. Ins. Co., 2020 Okla LEXIS 118 (Okla. Dec. 15, 2020). Johnson's property was damaged in a storm. She filed a claim with her insurer. She also executed an assignment of her claim in order to repair the property with the execution of assignment to Triple Diamond Construction LLC. An appraiser retained by Triple Diamond determined the storm damage was $36,346.06. The insurer paid only $21,725.36 for the loss. Johnson and Triple Diamond sued the insurer for breach of contract, seeking $14,620.70, not inclusive of interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The insurer filed a motion to dismiss, or an alternative motion for summary judgment to dismiss Triple Diamond as a party. The insurer argued that both the policy and an Oklahoma statute barred the assignment. The district court granted the insurer's motion. 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

    AB5 Construction Exemption - A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5's Three-Part Test

    May 18, 2020 —
    Construction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors' law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption. California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com

    Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

    February 24, 2020 —
    On January 31, 2020, Judge Kimberly Mueller issued a preliminary injunction "in full" preventing the State of California from enforcing AB 51, the state's new law effectively banning mandatory employee arbitration agreements. As we previously reported, AB 51 adds section 432.6 to the Labor Code and section 12953 to the Government Code, which together prohibit employers from requiring an employee, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or receipt of employment-related benefits, to waive any right, forum, or procedure to pursue a claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or the Labor Code. In other words, AB 51 bans mandatory employment arbitration agreements for employment-related claims. In early December 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business organizations sued the state of California in federal court in a bid to have AB 51 declared preempted --- and therefore unenforceable --- by the Federal Arbitration Act. The case is Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Becerra, Case No. 2:19-cv-2456 KJM DB (E.D. Cal.). On December 30, 2019, Judge Mueller issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing AB 51 pending the resolution of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. You can read our report here. Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Jeffrey K. Brown and Tyler B. Runge Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at kb@paynefears.com Mr. Runge may be contacted at tbr@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA

    August 03, 2022 —
    Takeaways
    • The Supreme Court sided with a coalition of states and coal mining companies constraining EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
    • The Supreme Court’s deployment of the “major questions doctrine” could have far-reaching implications for agencies’ authority to take actions that are politically and economically significant.
    • The Court also announced a broad interpretation of standing, finding that the challengers could bring their suit notwithstanding EPA’s announced nonenforcement of the Clean Power Plan and intent to engage in a rulemaking to replace it.
    Introduction On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, invalidating the 2015 Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP). Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, holding that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to devise emissions caps based on “generation shifting”—the approach EPA took in the CPP wherein power plants would be required to transition from higher-emitting (e.g., coal) to lower-emitting (e.g., natural-gas) to then even lower-emitting (e.g., wind and solar) electricity production. The Court’s holding that the case was justiciable despite the Biden administration’s stated intent to repeal the Clean Power Plan and engage in a new rulemaking, as well as its deployment of the “major questions doctrine,” is likely to have far-reaching implications for legal challenges to all administrative agency actions. Reprinted courtesy of Anne Idsal Austin, Pillsbury, Shelby L. Dyl, Pillsbury and Sheila McCafferty Harvey, Pillsbury Ms. Austin may be contacted at anne.austin@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Dyl may be contacted at shelby.dyl@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Harvey may be contacted at sheila.harvey@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Allocating Covered and Uncovered Damages in Jury Verdict

    March 01, 2021 —
    When a liability insurer defends an insured from a third-party claim, they oftentimes do so under a reservation of rights. A reservation of rights letter is issued to the insured that identifies certain coverage exclusions or reservations relative to the insurance policy that may impact the insurer’s duty to indemnify the insured for damages. In other words, just because the insurer is defending its insured does not mean it will be indemnifying its insured for damages asserted in the third-party claim.
    Under Florida law, the party claiming insurance coverage has the initial burden to show that a settlement or judgment represents damages that fall within the coverage provisions of the insurance policy. An insured’s inability to allocate the amount of a judgment between covered and uncovered damages is therefore generally fatal to its indemnification claim. However, the burden of apportioning or allocating between covered and uncovered damages in a general jury verdict may be shifted to the insurer if the insurer did not adequately make known to the insured the availability and advisability of a special verdict. QBE Specialty Ins. Co. v. Scrap Inc., 806 Fed.Appx. 692, *695 (11th Cir. 2020) (internal citations omitted).
    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

    Good and Bad News on Construction Employment

    February 10, 2012 —

    The construction industry hit a two-year high in January, with 21,000 jobs added that month. The mild winter is assumed to have helped. According to the General Contractors of America, the construction industry currently employs about 5.57 million people. This is a 21 percent gain over January 2010. Ken Simonson, the chief economist of GCA, noted that “the unemployment rate in construction is still double that of the overall economy.” He said it was not currently clear if “the recent job growth reflects a sustained pickup or merely acceleration of homebuilding and highway projects that normally halt when the ground freezes in December and January.”

    Stephen Sandherr, the chief executive officer of the GCA, said that the federal government had to make infrastructure funding a top priority. “Without adequate long-term funding for infrastructure, competitive tax rates and fewer costly regulatory hurdles, the construction industry may lose some of the jobs it gained in the last year.”

    Read the full story…

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