BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing 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


    Product Liability Economic Loss Rule and “Other Property” Damage

    Eleventh Circuit Asks Georgia Supreme Court if Construction Defects Are Caused by an "Occurrence"

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers

    Insurer in Bad Faith Due to Adjuster's Failure to Keep Abreast of Case Law

    New Jersey Rules that Forensic Lab Analysts Can’t be Forced to Testify

    Design-Assist Collaboration/Follow-up Post

    Giant Floating Solar Flowers Offer Hope for Coal-Addicted Korea

    2022 California Construction Law Update

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Coverage for Named Windstorm Removed by Insured, Terminating Such Coverage

    Housing Stocks Rally at End of November

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    Busting Major Alternative-Lending Myths

    War-Torn Ukraine Looks to Europe’s Green Plans for Reconstruction Ideas

    “Genuine” Issue of “Material” Fact and Summary Judgments

    Top 10 Take-Aways: the ABA Forum's 2024 Mid-Winter Meeting

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

    Should a Subcontractor provide bonds to a GC who is not himself bonded? (Bonding Agent Perspective)

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    Contractors and Owners Will Have an Easier Time Identifying Regulated Wetlands Following Recent U.S. Supreme Court Opinion

    Ensuring Arbitration in Construction Defect Claims

    Finding Insurer's Declaratory Relief Action Raises Unsettled Questions of State Law, Case is Dismissed

    Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

    Failing to Adopt a Comprehensive Cyber Plan Can Lead to Disaster

    Maria Latest Threat to Puerto Rico After $1 Billion Irma Hit

    "Occurrence" May Include Intentional Acts In Montana

    In Real Life the Bad Guy Sometimes Gets Away: Adding Judgment Debtors to a Judgment

    Bay Area Counties Issue Less Restrictive “Shelter in Place” Orders, Including for Construction

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”

    Construction Feb. Jobs Jump by 61,000, Jobless Rate Up from Jan.

    Torrey Pines Court Receives Funding for Renovation

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

    Discovery Requests in Bad Faith Litigation Considered by Court

    Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?

    Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

    Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines

    Changes to Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act in New York Introduced

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

    Can We Compel Insurers To Cover Construction Defect in General Liability Policies?

    Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage

    CRH to Buy Building-Products Firm Laurence for $1.3 Billion

    SEC Climate Change Disclosure Letter Foreshadows Anticipated Regulatory Changes

    Insurer Has No Obligation to Cover Arbitration Award in Construction Defect Case

    EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

    Hospital Settles Lawsuit over Construction Problems

    Congratulations to all of our 2023 Attorneys Named as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: World Class Shopping Experiences

    No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Allegations of Collapse Rejected

    Purse Tycoon Aims at Ultra-Rich With $85 Million Home
    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

    Second Circuit Denies Petitions for Review of EPA’s Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures

    August 20, 2018 —
    On July 23, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided the case of Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition v. EPA. Environmental conservation groups and industry associations petitioned for review of a final rule promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), establishing requirements for cooling water intake structures at existing facilities. Denying the petitions for review, the Court of Appeals summarized:
    “Because we conclude, among other things, that both the Rule and the biological opinion are based on reasonable interpretations of the applicable statutes and sufficiently supported by the factual record, and because the EPA 3 gave adequate notice of its rulemaking, we DENY the petitions for review.”
    This is a significant CWA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) decision involving the operation of major industrial facilities requiring the daily use of large amounts of water taken from adjacent bodies of water. 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

    Supreme Court Eliminates Judicial 'Chevron' Deference to Federal Agency Statutory Interpretations

    July 31, 2024 —
    Washington, D.C. (July 1, 2024) – In a much-anticipated decision, on June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a sweeping opinion “overrul[ing]” a 40-year old precedent that required judges to defer to federal agency interpretations of their governing statutes when those laws were ambiguous or silent. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, et al. No. 22-451 (2024), overruling Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The decision means that courts will no longer give special weight to an agency’s view of the scope of its regulatory powers but must apply independent judgment in deciding “whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” Loper Bright, slip op. at 35. Taking pains to explain that the new ruling would not allow for reversals of cases previously decided under the Chevron doctrine, the Court left no doubt that, in the words of Justice Neil Gorsuch, “[t]oday, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss.” Id., Gorsuch Concurring Opinion at 1. Writing for a 6-2 majority, Chief Justice Roberts forcefully condemned the Chevron-based principle that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of the scope of its legal authority, rejecting the concept that agencies have any special expertise in statutory interpretation, a field reserved to the courts, not the executive branch, under Article III of the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com

    HP Unveils Cheaper, 3-D Printing System to Spur Sales

    November 05, 2014 —
    Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ) unveiled a new 3-D-capable computer and speedier 3-D printer technology as it prepares to spin off its personal-computer and printer businesses into a stand-alone company. The company today introduced Sprout, an $1,899 computer that lets people scan and manipulate 2-D and 3-D objects. It will be available early next month online and in some U.S. stores. Hewlett-Packard also said new 3-D printer technology will make the process cheaper and faster than competitors. The Palo Alto, California-based company is betting that 3-D technology will help revitalize sales and spur growth in the printer industry. More than 2.3 million 3-D printers will ship in 2018, up from about 108000 this year, according to researcher Gartner Inc. Earlier this month, Hewlett-Packard said it would split into two companies by late 2015, with one focused on corporate hardware services and the other -- dubbed HP Inc. -- on PCs and printers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jack Clark, Bloomberg
    Mr. Clark may be contacted at jclark185@bloomberg.net

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    February 10, 2012 —

    The California Court of Appeals has ruled on January 9, 2012 in Hensel Phelps Construction Company v. Urata & Sons Cement, upholding the judgment of the lower court.

    Hensel Phelps was the general contractor for a high-rise in Sacramento. They were sued by the owners of the building after problems were discovered in the concrete slabs of the building’s parking garage. Instead of welded steel wire mesh, the slabs had been constructed with fiber mesh. Hensel Phelps filed a cross-complaint against Urata Cement, the subcontractor that had performed the cement work. Urata refused to defend Hensel Phelps. The owners’ case was subsequently dismissed due to the statute of limitations.

    Although the original case was over, Hensel Phelps continued in their claims against Urata. “Urata argued that a handwritten interlineation required Hensel Phelps to prove Urata was at fault for the injury alleged in the building owners’ complaint before Urata was obliged to defend Hensel Phelps in that action.”

    The lower court concluded that Urata would have been obligated to defend Hensel Phelps if the owners’ lawsuit had alleged that the damage was due to the subcontractor’s work or if evidence at trial established this. The lower court found neither of these true. Instead, the use of the fiber mesh was a design issue and “that decision was outside the scope of the subcontractor’s work.”

    During the trial, Hensel Phelps conceded that Urata was not at fault. The appeals court could find no reading of the contract that would cause Urata to be obligated to defend Hensel Phelps, calling Hensel Phelps’s reading of the contact as “grammatically infeasible.”

    Judges Nicholson, Raye, and Butz upheld the decision of the lower court and awarded costs on appeal to Urata.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Digitalizing Cross-Laminated Timber Construction

    August 28, 2018 —
    A Finnish experimentation project has made cross-laminated timber construction more productive and creative by using digital modeling. The office of &’ [Emmi Keskisarja & Janne Teräsvirta & Company Architects Ltd] looks rather like a prototype workshop. Intriguing scale models, a 3D printer, and a small CNC machine all give clues about the architects’ current project. They’re determined to make wood construction more collaborative and creative using digital technologies and cross-laminated timber (CLT). Plenty of Room for Improvement “I’m going to present our KIRA-digi project at WDBE 2018 in September. Incidentally, our wooden installation will be on display during Helsinki Design Week,” says Keskisarja. “We want to communicate with the public, not just within our professional circles, as architects typically do. The theme of the week is trust, something that’s missing in today’s construction.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling On Certificates Of Merit And “Gist Of Action” May Make It More Difficult For An Architect Or Engineer To Seek An Early Dismissal

    January 07, 2015 —
    In Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified the gist of the action doctrine that distinguishes between tort and contract claims. In doing this, the Court also ruled that a Certificate of Merit in a professional liability claim is necessary only if the plaintiff is in a direct client relationship with the licensed professional. This clarification of the Certificate of Merit requirement may limit the ability of architects and engineers to obtain an early dismissal in lawsuits. Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co. involves a common scenario. The Brunos filed a claim with their homeowners’ insurer after discovering mold in their home during remodeling. The policy included an endorsement providing coverage for mold. As part of the claim adjustment, Erie hired an engineer to inspect the mold and to provide an opinion on its severity to determine the extent of remediation required. The engineer hired by Erie reported to Mr. Bruno that the mold was harmless, that concern over health problems due to mold was merely a “media frenzy,” and that the Brunos should continue with their renovations. Reprinted courtesy of Jerrold P. Anders, White and Williams LLP and Michael W. Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    DE Confirms Robust D&O Protection Despite Company Demise

    February 18, 2015 —
    On Feb. 5, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, per Judge Brendan L. Shannon, entered proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the former president and CEO of Ultimate Escapes Inc., James M. Tousignant, and its chairman, Richard Keith, after determining that Tousignant’s actions in negotiating and executing a controversial asset purchase agreement were protected by the business judgment rule, despite the demise of the company a short time later. The failure of a business strategy, in and of itself, does not create liability on the part of the former directors and officers of a bankrupt company. Background Ultimate Escapes was a luxury destination club that provided its members with access to high-end vacation residences around the world. Unfortunately, Ultimate Escapes’ business suffered greatly from the economic downturn that began in 2008, and on Sept. 20, 2010, Ultimate Escapes filed voluntary petitions for relief pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys James Yoder, Michael Onufrak and Siobhan Cole Mr. Yoder may be contacted at yoderj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Onufrak may be contacted at onufrakm@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Cole may be contacted at coles@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Road Project to Improve Access to Peru's Machu Picchu Site

    June 04, 2024 —
    Reaching the Incan citadel of Machu Picchu is historically famous for its difficulty. The site’s remote location was a factor in the Spanish conquistadors overlooking it as they swept Peru for its riches. Archaeologist and politician Hiram Bingham had been seeking another “lost” Incan city when he happened across it in 1911. Reprinted courtesy of C.J. Schexnayder, Engineering News-Record Mr. Schexnayder may be contacted at schexnayderc@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of