BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut contractor 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


    Study Finds Construction Cranes Vulnerable to Hacking

    Why Employees Are Taking Ownership of Their Architecture Firms

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/4/24) – New CRE Litmus Tests, Tech Integration in Real Estate and a Jump in Investor Home Purchases

    These Are the 13 Cities Where Millennials Can't Afford a Home

    The Clock is Ticking: Construction Delays and Liquidated Damages

    Best U.S. Home Sales Since 2007 Show Momentum in Housing Market

    Brenner Base Tunnelers Conquer Peaks and Valleys in the Alps

    Performance Bonds: Follow the Letter of the Bond and Keep The Surety Informed

    Case Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment Granted for BWB&O’s Client in Wrongful Death Case!

    Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    Turning Back the Clock: DOL Proposes Previous Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Definition

    New York State Legislature Reintroduces Bills to Extend Mortgage Recording Tax to Mezzanine Debt and Preferred Equity

    Civil RICO Case Against Johnny Doc Is Challenging

    Insured’s Bad Faith Insurance Claim Evaporates Before its Eyes

    Harvey's Aftermath Will Rattle Construction Supply Chain, Economists Say

    Don’t Put All Your Eggs in the Silent-Cyber Basket

    Insurer's Withheld Discovery Must be Produced in Bad Faith Case

    Before and After the Storm: Know Your Insurance Rights, Coverages and Obligations

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    San Francisco Law Firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Hired New Partner

    OSHA Reinforces COVID Guidelines for the Workplace

    Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

    Hirers Must Affirmatively Exercise Retained Control to be Liable Under Hooker Exception to Privette Doctrine

    Storm Breaches California River's Levee, Thousands Evacuate

    Deadline Nears for “Green Performance Bond” Implementation

    French Government Fines National Architects' Group $1.6M Over Fee-Fixing

    Largest US Dam Removal Stirs Debate Over Coveted West Water

    Buyer Beware: Insurance Agents May Have No Duty to Sell Construction Contractors an Insurance Policy Covering Likely Claims

    Join: Computer Science Meets Construction

    Rooftop Solar Leases Scaring Buyers When Homeowners Sell

    Housing-Related Spending Made Up Significant Portion of GDP in Fourth Quarter 2013

    Choice of Law Provisions in Construction Contracts

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Causing Property Damage to Insured's Product Only

    Heads I Win, Tails You Lose. Court Finds Indemnity Provision Went Too Far

    Awarding Insurer Summary Judgment Before Discovery Completed Reversed

    Related’s $1 Billion Los Angeles Project Opens After 15-Year Wait

    Amazon Urged to Review Emergency Plans in Wake of Deadly Tornado

    World’s Biggest Crane Gets to Work at British Nuclear Plant

    Housing Affordability Down

    Deescalating Hyper Escalation

    Affordable Global Housing Will Cost $11 Trillion

    Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

    What You Should Know About Liquidated Damages and Liability Caps for Delay and Performance Liquidated Damages

    Indirect Benefit Does Not Support Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Prime Contractor

    Could You Be More Specific . . . About My Excess AI Coverage?

    Formaldehyde-Free Products for Homes

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

    The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

    Construction Suit Ends with Just an Apology
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Named Insured’s Liability Found Irrelevant to Additional Insured’s Coverage Under a Landlords and Lessors Additional Insured Endorsement

    November 16, 2020 —
    In Truck Ins. Exchange v. AMCO Ins. Co. (No. B298798, filed 10/26/20), a California appeals court held that even though the named insured restaurant-lessee was found not liable for premises liability to injured restaurant patrons, the respective liability of the named and additional insured was irrelevant to the landlord-lessor’s coverage for injuries “arising out of” the lessee’s “use” of the premises under a landlords, managers or lessors of premises additional insured endorsement on the lessee’s general liability policy. In Truck v. AMCO, restaurant patrons were injured when a vehicle crashed into the restaurant while they were dining. The landlord was aware of a similar accident that happened several years before, but the current lessee operating the restaurant was not. The patrons sued the lessee, alleging negligence and premises liability for failing to take precautionary measures and safeguard the patrons. On learning of the prior incident, the patrons added the landlord, alleging that it should have protected the property from a recurrence by reinforcing the door and installing bollards by the street. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    For Smart Home Technology, the Contract Is Key

    June 07, 2021 —
    In our previous post we discussed the importance of conducting a thorough due diligence and procurement process with smart technology providers. Next up? The contract. The price of a procured product is always important, but equally important are other contractual terms that reflect the commercial agreement. Ultimately, the contract should answer the fundamental question of “What are you buying?” The product itself is not the only feature being purchased. A customer is also buying certainty, service performance, risk mitigation, flexibility, security, compliance, and other similar “intangible” items of value. The Price of Certainty As part of the price, the purchaser of smart technology is also buying certainty. What do we mean by that? Reprinted courtesy of James W. McPhillips, Pillsbury and Rachel Newell, Pillsbury Mr. McPhillips may be contacted at james.mcphillips@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Newell may be contacted at rachel.newell@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Shoring of Problem Girders at Salesforce Transit Center Taking Longer than Expected

    November 14, 2018 —
    The Transbay Joint Powers Authority announced on Oct. 10 that emergency remedial work at the 4.5-block-long Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco, on the closed Fremont Street between Howard and Mission streets, will continue into early next week. The block, which crosses under the hub, will reopen to traffic and the public on Wednesday, Oct. 17, rather than Oct. 12, as previously announced, says TJPA. The transit center itself, which opened in August, is temporarily closed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

    Getting U.S to Zero Carbon Will Take a $2.5 Trillion Investment by 2030

    December 29, 2020 —
    It’s going to take $2.5 trillion in spending over the next decade to get the U.S. on a path to a carbon-free economy, but the transition will help to pay for itself, Princeton University researchers say. Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 -- a central goal of President-elect Joe Biden’s climate plan -- would require expanding renewable-energy systems, building more efficient homes and putting 50 million electric cars on the road, according to a report released Tuesday. The effort, two years in the making, is the first major assessment since the election detailing how the U.S. can transition to an energy system that satisfies scientific guidance for keeping the climate livable. While the upfront costs are significant, they would be offset by savings associated with switching to cheaper electricity and the creation of as many as 1 million new jobs, according to the researchers, who shared an earlier draft with Biden’s transition team. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Will Wade & Eric Roston, Bloomberg

    Fraudster Sells 24-Bedroom ‘King’s Speech’ London Mansion

    May 20, 2015 —
    Edward Davenport, jailed for fraud for his role in a fake lender, sold a 24-bedroom mansion in London’s Marylebone district that was featured in the film “The King’s Speech.” The money raised from the sale will be used to repay 13 million pounds ($20 million) from a confiscation order by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, the Serious Fraud Office said in a statement Wednesday. Davenport was jailed for more than seven years in October 2011 for his role in Gresham Ltd., a company that said it offered to provide commercial funding in return for advance fees, the SFO said. After securing the payments, employees would make deceptive assertions to extract further fees, the SFO said in 2011. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Neil Callanan, Bloomberg

    Developer Sues TVA After It Halts Nuke Site Sale

    December 19, 2018 —
    The multibillion-dollar completion of a nuclear unit at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s unfinished 1,260-MW Bellefonte plant in Alabama is in limbo after the federal power producer refused to complete its sale to Nuclear Development LLC, which has since filed a breach of contract complaint in federal district court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    California’s Right To Repair Act Is The Sole Remedy For Damages For Construction Defects In New Residential Construction

    March 14, 2018 —
    The California Supreme Court ruled in McMillin Albany LLC et al. v. The Superior Court of Kern County, (1/18/2018) 4 cal. 5th 241, that California’s Right to Repair Act, California Civil Code sections 895 et seq. (“Act”) is the sole remedy for construction defect claims for economic loss and property damages regarding new residential construction. The Act establishes a pre-litigation dispute resolution process that must be followed before filing a construction defect action for new residential construction purchased after January 1, 2003. The Act provides a builder with the right to attempt to repair construction defects before litigation is filed. The McMillin ruling resolved a split among two court of appeal decisions regarding the scope of the Act: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and Burch v. Superior Court [(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1411. Those cases held that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for construction defect lawsuits that allege property damage arising from new residential construction. Therefore owners of new residential construction where construction defects had caused property damage were not required to proceed under the Act and instead could proceed with common law claims. McMillilin removes that option. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark Johnson, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Johnson may be contacted at majohnson@swlaw.com

    Inverse Condemnation and Roadwork

    October 09, 2023 —
    The following case, issued yesterday by the Georgia Supreme Court, addresses the accrual of the statute of limitations on a claim of inverse condemnation based on nuisance. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc. v. Forsyth Cnty., S22G0874, 2023 WL 6065278 (Ga. Sept. 19, 2023) We granted certiorari in this case to clarify the standards for determining when a claim for inverse condemnation by permanent nuisance accrues for purposes of applying the four-year statute of limitation set forth in OCGA § 9-3-30 (a). [. . .] Permanent nuisance cases vary in relation to when the alleged harm to a plaintiff’s property caused by the nuisance becomes “observable” to the plaintiff. Forrister, 289 Ga. at 333 (2), 711 S.E.2d 641. In some cases, the harm to the plaintiff’s property is immediately observable “upon the creation of the nuisance.” Id. For example, where a landowner or governmental agency “erects a harmful structure such as a bridge or conducts a harmful activity such as opening a sewer that pollutes a stream,” and it is immediately obvious that the structure or activity interferes with the plaintiff’s interests, the plaintiff must file “one cause of action for the recovery of past and future damages caused by [the] permanent nuisance” within four years of the date the structure is completed or the harmful activity is commenced. Id. at 333-336 (2) and (3), 711 S.E.2d 641 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 899 and 930). Phrased another way, where the “construction and continuance” of the permanent nuisance at issue is “necessarily an injury, the damage is original, and may be at once fully compensated. In such cases[,] the statute of limitations begins to run upon the construction of the nuisance.” City Council of Augusta v. Lombard, 101 Ga. 724, 727, 28 S.E. 994 (1897). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com