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


    Housing Sales Hurt as Fewer Immigrants Chase Owner Dream

    As the Term Winds Down, Several Important Regulatory Cases Await the U.S. Supreme Court

    WSHB Expands to Philadelphia

    Private Mediations Do Not Toll The Five-Year Prosecution Statute

    Look Up And Look Out: Increased Antitrust Enforcement Of Horizontal No-Poach Agreements Signals Heightened Scrutiny Of Vertical Agreements May Be Next

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    Homebuilders Opposed to Potential Change to Interest on Construction Defect Expenses

    Power & Energy - Emerging Insurance Coverage Cases of Interest

    10 Safety Tips for General Contractors

    Appreciate The Risks You Are Assuming In Your Contract

    New ANSI Requirements for Fireplace Screens

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    English High Court Finds That Business-Interruption Insurance Can Cover COVID-19 Losses

    Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis Obtain Affirmation of Final Summary Judgment

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case

    New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

    SEC Proposes Rule Requiring Public Firms to Report Climate Risks

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Nevada for Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Appeals Court Finds Manuscript Additional Insured Endorsements Ambiguous Regarding Completed Operations Coverage for Additional Insured

    Detect and Prevent Construction Fraud

    Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

    Yes, Virginia, Contract Terms Do Matter: Financing Term Offers Owner an Escape Hatch

    When Is a Project Delay Material and Actionable?

    Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California

    Palo Alto Proposes Time Limits on Building Permits

    How Data Drives the Future of Design

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Billionaire Row Condo Board Sues Developers Over 1,500 Building Defects

    Recovery Crews Swing Into Action as Hurricane Michael Departs

    Commonwealth Court Strikes Blow to Philly Window and Door Ordinance

    New York Appeals Court Rekindles the Spark

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

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    The Prolonged Effects on Commercial Property From Extreme Weather

    Fatal Boston Garage Demolition Leaves Long Road to Recovery

    Breach of Contract Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

    Insured's Jury Verdict Reversed After Improper Trial Tactics

    Congratulations to BWB&O Partner John Toohey and His Fellow Panel Members on Their Inclusion in West Coast Casualty’s 2022 Program!

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

    Collapse Claim Fails Due To Defectively Designed Roof and Deck

    Tennessee Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court

    Melissa Dewey Brumback Invited Into Claims & Litigation Management Alliance Membership

    Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

    Issues to Watch Out for When Managing Remote Workers

    JPMorgan Blamed for ‘Zombie’ Properties in Miami Lawsuit

    Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

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

    Boston Catwalk Collapse Injures Three Workers
    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

    DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions

    December 16, 2019 —
    The U.S. Court of Appeals or the District of Columbia has recently issued two important rulings on the Clean Air Act in particular and administrative law in general: California Communities Against Toxics, et al., v. EPA and Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA. The Battle of the Memos: Seitz Makes Way for Wehrum In the California Communities case, decided on August 20, 2019, the court held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that a petition to review a change in EPA policy announced in an agency memorandum which reversed an agency policy announced nearly 25 years ago in another agency memo must be rejected because the memo at issue was not a “final agency action” subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In 1995, the “Seitz Memo,” which interpreted Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and addresses the regulation and control of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources, stated that once a source of toxic emissions is classified as “major,” the facility remains subject to regulation as a major source even if the facility makes changes to the facility to limit its potential to emit such toxics below the major source threshold. Then, in 2018 under a new administration, the “Wehrum Memorandum” was issued which reversed this policy and its interpretation of the law. (Both memos were issued without any kind of advance notice or opportunity to comment.) If a source takes steps to limit its potential to emit, then it may be regulated as an area source, and subject to less rigid regulation. The court majority held that the Wehrum Memo was not a final agency action and was not subject to judicial review when it was measured against both prongs of the “finality test” devised by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bennet v. Spear, 520 US 154 (1997) and US Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016). While the memo undoubtedly represented the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process, the memo had no direct and appreciable legal consequences, and not therefore being a final action, the case must be dismissed. Judge Rogers filed a strong dissenting opinion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Alaska Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade

    February 28, 2022 —
    JUNEAU, Alaska — The Alaska Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) today released preliminary findings from the 2021 Report Card for Alaska's Infrastructure, with the full report slated to be released in coming weeks. Alaska civil engineers gave 12 categories of infrastructure an overall grade of a 'C-' meaning the state's infrastructure is in mediocre condition and requires attention. Alaska has consistently maintained its transportation infrastructure, solid waste and energy sectors despite omnipresent environmental threats, seismic events, permafrost and shore erosion. However, some sectors such as drinking water, wastewater, and Alaska's marine highways have fallen behind due to a lack of funding to keep up with current and future needs. Civil engineers graded aviation (C), bridges (B-), dams (C), drinking water (D), energy (C-), marine highways (D), ports and harbors (D+), rail (C), roads (C), solid waste (C), transit (B-) and wastewater (D). "Our systems and state agencies have demonstrated commendable resilience in the face of seismic events and other natural disasters," said David Gamez, co-chair, 2021 Report Card for Alaska's Infrastructure. "Unfortunately, we face many other threats, ranging from shore erosion to permafrost, major temperature fluctuations and avalanches. We must keep our foot on the gas to address current and future challenges to prevent power outages, road closures, suspended drinking water services, and many more vital services." To view the report card and all 12 categories, visit https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/alaska/. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    With Historic Removal of Four Dams, Klamath River Flows Again Unhindered

    October 21, 2024 —
    In a period of 16 months, four dams built between 1903 and 1962 came down as part of a monumental effort to clear 35 miles of the Klamath River spanning Oregon and California. The project owner, the Klamath River Renewal Corp., describes it as the largest dam removal effort in U.S.—and possibly world—history. Reprinted courtesy of Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Repair of Fractured Girders Complete at Shuttered Salesforce Transit Center

    July 22, 2019 —
    The repair of two fractured girders spanning Fremont Street and the reinforcement of twin girders spanning First Street are complete at the beleaguered Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette Doctrine

    May 02, 2022 —
    “The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine” – Plutarch And grind they do . . . slowly. For long time readers of the California Construction Law Blog you may recall a case we reported on over three years ago in 2018 – Sandoval v. Qualcomm Incorporated – a rather sad case about a severely injured employee of an electrical subcontractor with an even more surprisingly ending. In Sandoval, the 4th District Court of Appeals affirmed a $7 million judgment against project owner Qualcomm Incorporated in which a jury found that Qualcomm was liable under the Privette doctrine for injuries sustained by the employee who was severely burned over one third of his body by an “arc flash” from a live circuit breaker. The Court of Appeals, in a surprising decision, upheld the verdict holding that Qualcomm was liable even through: (1) Qualcomm had informed the electrical subcontractor that certain live circuit breakers were energized; (2) Qualcomm had not authorized the lower-tiered contractor to remove a panel that resulted in the arc flash; and (3) employees of Qualcomm were not in the room when the accident happened. Fast forward three years to September 2021. Qualcomm attorneys petition the California Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. And the Supreme Court granted review. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    February 26, 2015 —
    The Nebraska Court of Appeals threw a wrench into the calculation of your warranty earlier this year in Adams v. Manchester Park, LLC and Southfork Homes, Inc. In that case, the court found that the statute of limitations for a warranty claim started running after the homebuilder’s warranty expired. So, the four year breach of warranty statute of limitations did not begin until after the one year homebuilder warranty expired. In this case, the homeowner purchased a home from Southfork in September, 2007. The purchase agreement provided for a one-year New Home Limited Warranty which covered material defects in workmanship and materials. The homeowner noticed cracks in the drywall and problems with windows within 6 months of the purchase. The builder told the homeowner to keep track of all the problems and they would be fixed at the yearend walk through. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Texas and Georgia Are Paying the Price for Sprawl

    March 15, 2021 —
    Cities in the Sun Belt South have been needing a more modern development model for a while. That's created tensions, both economically and politically, that have only accelerated during the past year's pandemic. My colleague Noah Smith wrote a column about this specific to Texas, but it's broader than any one state and it's useful to think about how we got to this point and why these issues are relevant in 2021 in a way they weren't a generation ago. There's an institutional reluctance to pivot away from the Sun Belt model defined by low taxes and cheap land because of how successful it was for key constituencies for decades. Coming out of World War II, there was a scramble nationwide to build more housing in response to soldiers coming home from war and pent-up demand for family formation. The combination of the automobile as the nation's now-dominant form of transportation and the passage of the Federal Highway Act of 1956 made building out the suburbs of less-populated southern states an irresistible growth model for politicians and economic development interests alike. If it required tax breaks and fewer regulations to lure jobs and people from northern states to accelerate the process, so be it. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Conor Sen, Bloomberg
    Mr. Sen may be contacted at csen9@bloomberg.net

    The Rise of Modular Construction – Impacts for Consideration

    December 04, 2023 —
    Modular construction is not new. However, over the last several years, modular construction has seen significant growth with no signs of slowing down. In 2021, global modular construction represented a market of approximately $130 billion and is projected to reach upwards of $235 billion by 2031. Modular construction growth in the US is largely due to the technological advances and globalization. In general, modular construction involves the manufacturing and fabrication of standardized components of a structure in an off-site, controlled environment. Once those components are fabricated, they are then transported to the project site and assembled by an installer or contractor. Moving these fabrication and construction activities off-site allows the fabricator to control the quality standards over the fabrication process and gain the economic advantage of an assembly line and manufacturing process. This leads to a reduction in cost. This cost savings is then passed on to the owner, thereby driving down the overall price of construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chad V. Theriot, Jones Walker (ConsensusDocs)
    Mr. Theriot may be contacted at ctheriot@joneswalker.com