BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expert
    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


    Pallonji Mistry, Indian Billionaire Caught in Tata Feud, Dies at 93

    Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct

    U.S. Homebuilder Confidence Rises Most in Almost a Year

    Public Adjuster Cannot Serve As Disinterested Appraiser

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Policy Reformed to Add New Building Owner as Additional Insured

    Cherokee Nation Wins Summary Judgment in COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    Toll Brothers Named #1 Home Builder on Fortune Magazine's 2023 World's Most Admired Companies® List

    Senior Living Facility Makes Construction Defect Claims

    GRSM Team Wins Summary Judgment in Million-Dollar HOA Dispute

    Breath of Fresh Air

    Understanding the Miller Act

    A Year Later, Homeowners Still Repairing Damage from Sandy

    A Teaming Agreement is Still a Contract (or, Be Careful with Agreements to Agree)

    Fire Raging North of Los Angeles Is Getting Fuel From Dry Winds

    Noteworthy Construction Defect Cases for 1st Qtr 2014

    Ignoring Employee ADA Accommodation Requests Can Be Costly – A Cautionary Tale

    Coverage Issues: When You Need Your Own Lawyer in a Construction Defect Suit

    Need and Prejudice: An Eleventh-Hour Trial Continuance Where A Key Witness Is Unexpectedly Unavailable

    Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2022 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas By U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases

    Engineer at Flint Negligence Trial Details Government Water Errors

    Suffolk Stands Down After Consecutive Serious Boston Site Injuries

    Court Finds That Limitation on Conditional Use Permit Results in Covered Property Damage Due to Loss of Use

    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

    A Place to Study Eternity: Building the Giant Magellan Telescope

    Insureds Survive Motion to Dismiss Civil Authority Claim

    Appetite for Deconstruction

    Colorado Court of Appeals Confirms Senior Living Communities as “Residential Properties” for Purposes of the Homeowner Protection Act

    Additional Insured is Loss Payee after Hurricane Damage

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

    History and Gentrification Clash in a Gilded Age Resort

    Construction Defects Checklist

    The Practical Distinction Between Anticipatory Breach and Repudiation and How to Deal with Both on Construction Projects

    Inability to Confirm Coverage Supports Setting Aside Insured’s Default Judgment on Grounds of Extrinsic Mistake

    Luxury-Apartment Boom Favors D.C.’s Millennial Renters

    NTSB Pittsburgh Bridge Probe Update Sheds Light on Collapse Sequence

    Boston Team Obtains Complete Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in Professional Liability Matter

    Golf Resorts Offering Yoga, Hovercraft Rides to the Green

    Why’d You Have To Say That?

    Home Prices Up, Inventory Down

    Determining the Cause of the Loss from a Named Windstorm when there is Water Damage - New Jersey

    The California Legislature Return the Power Back to the People by Passing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018

    What Construction Firm Employers Should Do Right Now to Minimize Legal Risk of Discrimination and Harassment Lawsuits

    NYC’s First Five-Star Hotel in Decade Seen at One57 Tower

    Several Lewis Brisbois Partners Recognized by Sacramento Magazine in List of Top Lawyers

    Baltimore Project Pushes To Meet Federal Deadline

    Ninth Circuit Finds Policy’s Definition of “Policy Period” Fatal to Insurer’s “Related Claims” Argument

    Separation of Insureds Provision in CGL Policies
    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

    Proposed Bill Provides a New Federal Tax Credit for the Conversion of Office Buildings

    September 06, 2021 —
    At the end of July 2021, a bill was introduced in the House and Senate, which, if enacted, would create a federal tax credit to fund the conversion of unused office buildings into residential, commercial, or mixed-use properties. The Revitalizing Downtowns Act (S. 2511), which is modeled after the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit, would provide a federal tax credit equal to 20 percent of “qualified conversion expenditures” with respect to a “qualified converted building.” A “qualified converted building” means any building that (i) was nonresidential real property for lease to office tenants, (ii) has been “substantially converted” from an office use to a residential, retail, or other commercial use, (iii) in the case of conversion to residential units, is subject to a state or local affordable housing agreement or has at least 20 percent of the units rent restricted and set aside for tenants whose income is 80 percent or less of area median gross income, (iv) was initially placed in service at least 25 years before the beginning of conversion, and (v) may be depreciated or amortized. Reprinted courtesy of Emily K. Bias, Pillsbury and Brittany Griffith, Pillsbury Ms. Bias may be contacted at emily.bias@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Griffith may be contacted at brittany.griffith@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Down in Twin Cities Area

    October 30, 2013 —
    Although the year has been better for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, with a 9% increase since last year, this September saw 25% less construction spending than last September. Non-residential construction dropped even further, losing 36%. Although September was a bad month, the year-to-date value of construction contracts is about $3.3 billion, exceeding last year’s $3.0 billion for the region. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Structural Defects Lead Schools to Close off Areas

    February 12, 2013 —
    Two Virginia schools have closed off parts of their buildings after inspections discovered that walls were bowing outward due to structural defects. The inspectors determined that other portions of the Pulaski and Dublin middle schools were safe for occupancy. The school board is currently consulting with engineers to determine how best to stabilize the walls. A press release from the schools notes that the unstable wall at the Dublin Middle School is in the gym area, while at the Pulaski Middle School both the gym and auditorium are affected. As a precaution, the gyms at both schools, the Pulaski auditorium, and the spaces beneath have been closed off. Officials in the schools state that while they are seeking to repair the situation quickly, “we must operate under the assumption that repairs will not be complete by the end of this school year.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Recent Bad Faith Decisions in Florida Raise Concerns

    November 06, 2018 —
    The State of Florida has long been known as one of the most challenging jurisdictions for insurance carriers in the context of bad faith – to say the least. Two recent appellate decisions have taken an already difficult environment and seemingly “upped the ante” in what constitutes good faith claims handling in the context of third-party liability claims. Set forth below is an analysis of the Bannon v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. and Harvey v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. decisions. Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP attorneys Michael Kiernan, Lauren Curtis and Ashley Kellgren Mr. Kiernan may be contacted at mkiernan@tlsslaw.com Ms. Curtis may be contacted at lcurtis@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kellgren may be contacted at akellgren@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    It Was a Wild Week for Just About Everyone. Ok, Make that Everyone.

    April 06, 2020 —
    It was a crazy week last week as the number of coronavirus cases in the United States jumped to 32,783 cases as of Sunday, from 3,680 cases, just a week before. In an attempt to “flatten the curve” and help those impacted by the virus, numerous federal, state, and local orders were issued, including orders requiring that residents “shelter in place.” For businesses impacted by the “shelter in place” orders, which, in California, means virtually every business in the state following Governor Newsom’s state-wide “shelter in place” order, there’s been confusion as to who can and can’t continue to work under the orders including among contractors and project owners. Although things have been changing, sometimes daily, here’s what you need to know about the “shelter in place” orders: The Local “Shelter In Place” Orders On Monday, March 16, 2020, six Bay Area counties, and the City of Berkeley, issued “shelter in place” orders requiring that residents in those counties and city shelter in place except for “Essential Activities,” if performing “Essential Governmental Functions,” or if operating “Essential Businesses.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction

    March 30, 2020 —
    Due to pressure from construction workers, officials, and some construction workers having tested positive for COVID-19, the Empire State Development Corp. (acting on behalf of Governor Cuomo) has frozen all construction in New York today, with the exception of work on hospitals and health care facilities, transit facilities, roads and bridges, affordable housing and homeless shelters. As a result, commercial construction and condominium projects are on hold, with the exception of work that must be completed to prevent unsafe conditions. Until now, construction has been considered “essential” in New York. Reprinted courtesy of Laura Bourgeois LoBue, Pillsbury and Matthew D. Stockwell, Pillsbury Ms. LoBue may be contacted at laura.lobue@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Stockwell may be contacted at matthew.stockwell@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    That’s not the way we’ve always done it! (Why you should update your office practices)

    April 15, 2014 —
    Anyone recognize the photo to the left [Photo of Pay Phone]? If you are of the Millennial generation, this is a quaint thing called a public pay phone. They used to be everywhere. Imagine, not having a cell phone to keep you in constant contact with Big Brother…………. [the good old days]. As you may be able to tell from the fact that the receiver is hanging down, this phone has seen better days. What does this have to do with construction? Everything. Just because something is done one way– even for years, or decades– doesn’t mean it should stay that way. Just as you learn new technical skills and change your designs, you should also update and modernize your office practices. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders

    May 11, 2020 —
    For years, when faced with damage or injury spanning several policy periods, excess general liability insurers have argued that all potentially applicable underlying policies must be exhausted before the excess drops down to provide coverage (“horizontal exhaustion”). Insureds, on the other hand, insist that they are entitled to immediately access an excess policy for any given policy year, if that year’s underlying policy has exhausted (“vertical exhaustion”). Vertical exhaustion not only enables insureds to directly tap into the excess insurance for which they paid substantial premiums, but also enables the insured to moderate risk given that different lower level policies might (1) be needed for other claims, (2) have larger self-insured retentions, or (3) have other less favorable coverage provisions. Allowing an insured to proceed via vertical exhaustion would also eliminate the heavy administrative and logistical burden that could result from having to pursue and exhaust all underlying coverage on multi-year claims. In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court has come down in favor of policyholders and vertical exhaustion. The Montrose case involved contamination that allegedly occurred between 1947 and 1982 and different liability insurance towers (comprised of primary and excess layers) for each year. The insured, Montrose, maintained a tower of insurance coverage, year by year, and faced claims asserting damage that spanned several decades. Montrose sought coverage from excess insurers under a vertical exhaustion approach. Not surprisingly, Montrose’s excess insurers insisted that horizontal exclusion was required and that Montrose was required to exhausted all other policies with lower attachment points in every single involved policy period. The California Supreme Court ruled in Montrose’s favor, holding that the insured may insist upon full coverage from an excess insurer once the layer directly below it has exhausted. The Court reasoned that the burden of spreading the loss among insurers is one that is appropriately borne by insurers, not insureds. Reprinted courtesy of Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion and James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Packer may be contacted at alan.packer@ndlf.com Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of