BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs 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


    What is a Civil Dispute?

    Haight’s Stevie Baris Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Northern California Rising Stars

    Texas Couple Claim Many Construction Defects in Home

    General Liability Alert: ADA Requirements Pertaining to Wall Space Adjacent to Interior Doors Clarified

    Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers in 2023 “Best Law Firms” Rankings

    KB Home Names New President of its D.C. Metro Division

    Circuit Court Lacks Appellate Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    CSLB Begins Processing Applications for New B-2 License

    The Argument for Solar Power

    An Interesting Look at Mechanic’s Lien Priority and Necessary Parties

    Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

    Famed NYC Bridge’s Armor Is Focus of Suit Against French Company

    Focusing on Design Elements of the 2014 World Cup Stadiums

    The Black Woman Architect Who Hopes to Change the Face of Design in America

    Mass-Timber Furnished Apartments Fare Well in Fire Tests

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

    Contractors Pay Heed: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Two Important Issues For Bid Protestors

    California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

    Keller Group Fires Two Executives in Suspected Australia Profits Reporting Fraud

    One Word Makes All The Difference – The Distinction Between “Pay If Paid” and “Pay When Paid” Clauses

    The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

    Scarce Cemetery Space Creates Prices to Die For: Cities

    Delaware River Interstate Bridge Shut to Assess Truss Fracture

    COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

    Best Lawyers Honors Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Names Four Partners ‘Lawyers of the Year’

    #10 CDJ Topic: Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company

    Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

    Evaluating Construction Trends From 2023 and Forecasting For 2024

    Water Backup Payment Satisfies Insurer's Obligation to Cover for Rain Damage

    Formaldehyde-Free Products for Homes

    Giant Floating Solar Flowers Offer Hope for Coal-Addicted Korea

    CFTC Establishes Climate-Risk Unit, Echoing Other Biden Administration Agency Themes

    90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

    Partner Lisa M. Rolle and Associate Vito John Marzano Obtain Dismissal of Third-Party Indemnification Claims

    Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/29/24) – Megaprojects on the Rise, Agency Guidance for CRE, and an Upbeat Forecast for Commercial Real Estate Investment

    Recent Amendments and Caselaw Affecting the Construction Industry in Texas

    Structural Problems May Cause Year-Long Delay Opening New Orleans School

    Lawsuits over Roof Dropped

    GIS and BIM Integration Will Transform Infrastructure Design and Construction

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

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

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

    Congratulations to Jonathan Kaplan on his Promotion to Partner!

    Housing Inflation Begins to Rise

    Tenants Who Negligently Cause Fires in Florida Beware: You May Be Liable to the Landlord’s Insurer

    Transportation Officials Make the Best of a Bumpy 2020

    Breach of a Construction Contract & An Equitable Remedy?
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    “Bound by the Bond”

    September 02, 2024 —
    A New York trial court granted judgment in favor of a performance bond surety on a construction project, based upon the failure of the claiming party to abide by the terms of the bond. The “AIA Document A312” bond form – described by the court (quoting surety law authority) to be “one of the clearest, most definitive, and widely used type of traditional common law ‘performance bonds’ in private construction” – contains various procedures which must be honored as a “condition precedent to an action to recover” on the bond/against the surety. One of those prerequisites is a “declaration of default” concerning the contractor principal (here, a subcontractor). The case involved the construction of an 85-story skyscraper in midtown Manhattan, and the performance of the subcontract for the building’s superstructure. The bonded contract was at a value of approximately $25,000,000 and obligated the sub to provide a performance bond “in a form similar to the [A312 bond],” and which was otherwise satisfactory to the obligee/construction manager. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Home Construction Thriving in Lubbock

    December 30, 2013 —
    The 2013 numbers for home construction aren’t ready yet, but the January through November numbers for Lubbock, Texas show a 42% increase over the number of construction permits issued for single-family homes in the first 11 months of 2012. The number look even better compared to 2011’s totals, according to KFYO. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George Successfully Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal

    September 11, 2023 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George successfully opposed Plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior dismissal of plaintiff’s medical malpractice action brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The lawsuit, commenced by Plaintiff in 2015, alleged medical malpractice stemming from treatment Plaintiff received at a New York medical facility after falling out of a window at a rental property owned by Traub Lieberman’s client (“Property Owner”). Property Owner moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint or preclude Plaintiff from offering evidence in support of its claims, or in the alternative, compel plaintiff to produce all outstanding discovery. The Medical Facility cross-moved for the same relief. Defendants agreed to adjourn the motion until after plaintiff’s deposition, but plaintiff made no effort to secure an adjournment with the court and plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion, allowing the motion to be granted on default. Plaintiff waited nearly a year to file a motion to vacate the default judgment, despite receiving notification of the default from defense counsel. Property Owner, in opposing plaintiff’s motion, pointed to plaintiff’s long history of dilatory conduct and failure to comply with discovery orders in support of its position that plaintiff failed to show any good cause for its default on the motion to dismiss. Reprinted courtesy of Colleen E. Hastie, Traub Lieberman and Jeffrey George, Traub Lieberman Ms. Hastie may be contacted at chastie@tlsslaw.com Mr. George may be contacted at jgeorge@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Merger to Create Massive Los Angeles Construction Firm

    July 16, 2014 —
    AECOM Technology Corp., a Los Angeles engineering and construction firm, has agreed to pay $4 billion to acquire URS Corp., their San Francisco competitor. According to the Sacramento Bee, “The combined company will employ about 95,000 people in 150 countries.” AECOM is currently building the World Trade Center in New York, and previous projects include the Los Angeles Police Department headquarters, and renovations to the Port of Los Angeles and the Bradley international terminal at the Los Angeles International Airport, the Sacramento Bee reported. Furthermore, “URS has worked on the Garden Grove (22) Freeway reconstruction, the UCLA Ronald Reagan Medical Center, the Port of Long Beach, the Gold Line Eastside Extension in Los Angeles and the Disneyland resort expansion.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Never, Ever, Ever Assume! (Or, How a Stuck Shoe is Like a Construction Project Assumption)

    October 21, 2019 —
    This summer, I had the fortune of taking a trip to Europe. The first place I visited was Amsterdam. A lovely town with a lot of culture and more canals than you can shake a stick at. I was meeting family there, but had hours to kill ahead of time. So, I decided to take the train from the airport into the City Centre, leave my bags at the train station luggage locker, and begin exploring. My plan took its first misstep when I attempted to board the train. Not being in a hurry, I let the other passengers get on first. Sure, I noticed the train conductor blowing his whistle while I stepped onto the train, but figured I was fine since I was already on the steps up. Until, that is, the door began to close, with me in the doorway, suitcase in the train, one foot inside, and one foot mid step up to the cabin. The door closed on my backpack (which was still on my back), but I managed to force it into the train compartment. My shoe, however, was not quite as lucky. Part of my shoe made it inside, and part was outside the door. No worry– just look for the door release mechanism, right? Wrong! There was none. The train started up, with my shoe still halfway in and halfway out of the train. (Luckily my foot itself made it inside all in one piece). The conductor came along to scold me, and told me that he could *probably* rescue my shoe once we got to Central Station. In the meantime, I sat on a nearby jump seat, keeping tabs on my shoe and fuming that this was *not* the way I planned to start my vacation. Long story short– the train conductor was able to salvage my shoe, but not without a lot of commentary on how I should never have boarded the train after the whistle blew. Lesson learned. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Hawaii Supreme Court Tackles "Other Insurance" Issues

    February 25, 2014 —
    Responding to four certified questions from the Ninth Circuit, the Hawaii Supreme Court addressed various issues raised by competing "other insurance" provisions in two CGL policies. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 Haw. LEXIS 59 (Haw. Feb. 13, 2014). Coverage for a development on Maui was at issue. The developer, VP & PK (ML) LLC, was insured by Lexington. The other insurance provision in Lexington's policy provided it was excess over "any other primary insurance available to you covering liability for damages arising out of the premises . . . for which you have been added as an additional insured." Kila Kila Construction was one of VP & PK's subcontractors. Kika Kila was not an additional insured under Lexington's policy. Kila Kila had its own CGL policy with Nautilus. The Nautilus other insurance clause stated the insurance was excess over "any other primary insurance available to you covering liability arising out of the premises or operations for which you ahve been added as an additional insured." An endorsement added VP & PK as an additional insured, but only for liability arising out of Kila Kila's negligence. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    General Liability Alert: A Mixed Cause of Action with Protected and Non-Protected Activity Not Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion

    February 18, 2015 —
    In Baral v. Schnitt (filed 2/5/2015, No. B253620), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that California’s anti-SLAPP statute does not authorize the striking of allegations of protected activity in a cause of action that also contains meritorious allegations of non-protected activity not within the purview of the statute. In so holding, the court attempted to resolve, or at least add its voice to, the growing conflict among appellate districts on the issue. A SLAPP lawsuit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) seeks to chill or punish the exercise of constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances. California’s Legislature enacted the anti-SLAPP statute to permit a defendant to file a special motion to strike as to any cause of action that arises out of an act in furtherance of such rights. In Baral, the plaintiff alleged that his business partner had violated fiduciary duties in usurping the plaintiff’s ownership and management interests in their jointly owned company, so that the defendant could benefit from a secret sale of the company. The complaint alleged that the defendant hired a public accounting firm and prevented the plaintiff from participating in its investigation in order to force the plaintiff's cooperation of the sale of the company. The defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion, seeking to strike all references to the accounting firm's audit. The trial court denied the motion, on the ground that the anti-SLAPP statute applies to causes of action, not allegations. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Valerie A. Moore, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Blythe Golay Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com. Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com. Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses Vikings Stadium Funding Lawsuit

    January 22, 2014 —
    The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit that had alleged that funding for the new Vikings stadium was unconstitutional, according to KARE. "We were so hopeful the courts would deal with this expeditiously and they did," said Michele Kelm-Helgen, chair of the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority told KARE. "And they would be definitive in their result and they were." Doug Mann, former Minneapolis mayoral candidate, had been the one to file the lawsuit. Mann told KARE 11 that “the courts made their ‘political stance loud and clear’ and said he did not know if he would pursue any other legal action. But he maintained his position the stadium funding wasn't legally vetted.” Minnesota Vikings spokesperson Lester Bagley declared, “This was the last remaining hurdle that we see in front of us. We are pleased with the Supreme Court's and Court of Appeals' action,” KARE reported. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of