BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    Nevada’s Construction Defect Law

    Statute of Limitations Bars Lender’s Subsequent Action to Quiet Title Against Junior Lienholder Mistakenly Omitted from Initial Judicial Foreclosure Action

    Subsidence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Landslide

    Combating Climate Change by Reducing Embodied Energy in the Built Environment

    Women in Construction Aren’t Silent Anymore. They Are Using TikTok to Battle Discrimination

    ‘The Ground Just Gave Out’: How a Storm’s Fury Ravaged Asheville

    Two Things to Consider Before Making Warranty Repairs

    Mortgage Interest Rates Increase on Newly Built Homes

    Rhode Island Affirms The Principle That Sureties Must be Provided Notice of Default Before They Can be Held Liable for Principal’s Default

    ARUP, Rethinking Green Infrastructure

    Issuing Judgment After Confirmation of Appraisal Award Overturned

    California Ballot Initiative Seeks to Repeal Infrastructure Funding Bill

    Nationwide Immigrant Strike May Trigger Excusable Delay and Other Contract Provisions

    A WARNing for Companies

    Appeals Court Affirms Carrier’s Duty to Pay Costs Taxed Against Insured in Construction Defect Suit

    Avoid Five Common Fraudulent Schemes Used in Construction

    Contractor Definition Central to Coverage Dispute

    Construction Bidding for Success

    Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That’s Not the Most Interesting Part

    District of Oregon Predicts Oregon’s Place in “Plain Meaning” Pollution Camp

    NEHRP Recommendations Likely To Improve Seismic Design

    CGL Insurer’s Duty to Defend Insured During Pre-Suit 558 Process: Maybe?

    Fourth Circuit Clarifies What Qualifies As “Labor” Under The Miller Act

    Withdrawal Liability? Read your CBA

    Landowners Try to Choke Off Casino's Water With 19th-Century Lawsuit

    The Private Works: Preliminary Notice | Are You Using the Correct Form?

    Natural Hydrogen May Seem New in Town, but It’s Been Here All Along

    New York Developer gets Reprieve in Leasehold Battle

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

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

    Constructive Changes – A Primer

    Insured's Expert Qualified, Judgment for Coverage Affirmed

    Beware of Statutory Limits on Change Orders

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Confident about Construction Defect Bill

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations

    Perez Broke Records … But Should He Have Settled Earlier?

    Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect Case

    COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

    Happy New Year from CDJ

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    ‘Revamp the Camps’ Cabins Displayed at the CA State Fair

    Owner Can’t Pursue Statutory Show Cause Complaint to Cancel Lien… Fair Outcome?

    Partner John Toohey is Nominated for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!

    Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage

    Have the Feds Taken Over Arbitration?

    Did the Court of Appeals Just Raise the Bar for California Contractors to Self-Report Construction-Related Judgments?

    Single-Family Home Gain Brightens U.S. Housing Outlook: Economy

    Takeaways From Schedule-Based Dispute Between General Contractor and Subcontractor

    New Stormwater Climate Change Tool
    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

    Luxury Villa Fraudsters Jailed for Madeira Potato Field Scam

    September 25, 2018 —
    Four men and a woman convicted of conning people to invest in a fraudulent luxury villa construction scheme on a potato field in the Portuguese island of Madeira were sentenced to as long as 5 1/2 years in a U.K. jail. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Franz Wild, Bloomberg

    EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

    January 13, 2020 —
    The pre-publication version of the final rule to be promulgated by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to repeal the 2015 redefinition of the Clean Water Act’s term “Waters of the United States” which is the linchpin of these agencies’ regulatory power under the CWA, was made available on September 12, 2019. The rule should be published in the Federal Register in the next few weeks, and it will be effective 60 days thereafter. Many challenges are expected to be filed in the federal courts. The 2015 rule was very controversial, and petitions challenging the rule were filed in many federal district courts, several courts of appeal, and finally in the Supreme Court (see NAM v. Department of Defense), which held that all initial challenges must be filed in the federal district courts. The upshot of these challenges is that, at this time, the 2015 rule has been enjoined in more than half the states while the other states are bound by the 2015 rule, a situation which is frustrating for everyone. In addition to repealing the 2015 rule, the agencies also restored the pre-2015 definition had had been in place since 1986. As a result, the pre-2015 definition of waters of the U.S. will again govern the application of the following rules: (a) the ACOE’s definition of “waters of the U.S.” at 33 CFR Section 328.3; (b) EPA’s general Oil Discharge rule at 40 CFR Section 110; (c) the SPCC rules at 40 CFR Part 112; (d) EPA’s designation of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 116; (e) EPA’s hazardous substance reportable quantity rule at 40 CFR Part 117; (f) the NPDES permitting rules at 40 CFR Part 122; (g) the guidelines for dredged or fill disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 230; (g) Exempt activities not requiring a CWA 404 permit (guidelines for 404 disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 232); (h) the National Contingency Plan rules at 40 CFR Part 300; (i) the designation of reportable quantities of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 302; and (j) EPA’s Effluent Guidelines standards at 40 CFR Part 401. 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

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

    December 18, 2022 —
    This is short article on summary judgments. A motion for summary judgment, as you may already know, is a procedural vehicle to try to dispose of issues or claims in a lawsuit, either partially or fully. The objective is that the moving party claims that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to a judgment (partially or finally) as a matter of law. See Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510. In May of 2021, Florida adopted the federal summary judgment standard which theoretically means trial courts should grant more summary judgments, not less, based on the more rigorous standard. There have been many articles that discuss Florida’s new summary judgment standard including how the standard used to be versus how it is supposed to be now that it is modeled after the federal standard. That isn’t the point of this posting. (Here is an article published in the Florida Bar Journal that provides a primer on summary judgments in case you are interested.) The point of this posting is to understand the words “genuine” and “material” as underlined above when moving for or defending against a summary judgment. These words have important meaning in the context of motions for summary judgment. In other words, what is a genuine issue of material fact? This is a question that should not be overlooked because these are the facts you want to focus on and frame your arguments on when moving for or defending against a summary judgment. Notably, these are also the facts you want to introduce and emphasize at trial. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Revel Closing Shows Gambling Is No Sure Thing for Renewal

    September 03, 2014 —
    The Revel Casino Hotel was envisioned as a playground for Wall Streeters who hated flying to Las Vegas. Instead, it’s become a money pit for the banks and money managers who spearheaded the New Jersey project, and the losses will keep coming even after closing today. The Atlantic City resort, built at a cost of $2.4 billion, ceased operations after two bankruptcies and a 10-month search for a buyer. Barring a sale, the new owners may be Wells Fargo & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., which provided $125 million in court-approved funding. Previous backers also included Capital Group Cos., the third-largest manager of U.S. mutual funds, and Morgan Stanley, the original investor. The resort fell prey to poor timing, bad design and a misreading of the local market. The Revel saga shows what can go wrong when bankers stray from what they know, according to Charles Geisst, a professor of finance at Manhattan College in New York and author of the book “Wall Street: A History.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Palmeri, Bloomberg
    Mr. Palmeri may be contacted at cpalmeri1@bloomberg.net

    Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

    September 17, 2015 —
    California’s already tight housing market is facing another long-term complication: drought. The state’s dry spell is creating challenges for developers at a time when home prices are soaring because of limited inventory. The metropolitan areas of San Jose, San Francisco and San Diego had the nation’s biggest gap between the number of new jobs and residential building permits from 2012 to 2014, according to a report Wednesday by the National Association of Realtors. Now the drought, into its fourth year, stands to curb affordability further. “It’s contributing to price appreciation by restricting supply,” said Mark Boud, founder of Real Estate Economics, a housing-consulting firm based in Irvine, California. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg

    Newport Beach Partners Jeremy Johnson, Courtney Serrato, and Associate Joseph Real Prevailed on a Demurrer in a Highly Publicized Shooting Case!

    November 11, 2024 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara’s Partners Jeremy Johnson, Courtney Serrato, and Associate Joseph Real prevailed on a Demurrer in a highly publicized shooting case. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging negligence, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and public nuisance against BWB&O’s clients, a highly recognized hospitality and lifestyle company with nightlife and restaurant venues, in addition to other celebrity defendants. Plaintiffs were the victims of a shooting that occurred by an unknown individual(s) outside and near the restaurant/venue owned by BWB&O’s clients. Plaintiffs alleged it was BWB&O’s clients that were responsible for the third parties’ criminal acts because BWB&O’s clients attracted more people than the venue’s capacity, causing people to occupy the street, sidewalk, and property nearby. Plaintiffs further alleged that BWB&O’s client should have anticipated or known that criminal conduct, including gun violence, would take place. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Colorado Passes Compromise Bill on Construction Defects

    May 03, 2017 —
    After four failed attempts, Colorado legislators have finally reached a compromise on construction defect legislation. This afternoon, HB17-1279 gained unanimous approval from the House Committee on State, Veterans, and Military Affairs. The bill is expected to pass both chambers easily and be signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper. Proponents say that a bill is needed spur more condominium construction in the state. They contend that homebuilders have been reluctant to construct multifamily projects in recent years based on a perceived fear that small groups of homeowners can file lawsuits in the name of their community associations without adequate the consent of other members. A 2013 study found that quality control and insurance costs only reduce homebuilder profits by a small amount, but concerns about litigation have nevertheless prompted some construction professionals to focus on constructing apartments and other products. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Supreme Court Rules on Contractual Liability Exclusion in Construction Cases

    January 22, 2014 —
    The Texas Supreme Court ruled on Ewing v. Amerisure Ins. Co. on January 17th, a “much-anticipated” decision according to Carl A. Salisbury of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP. “Construction projects are always the subject of contracts among owners and contractors” Salisbury stated in his article on Lexology.com. The recent decision demonstrates that “an exclusion in the standard Comprehensive Liability Insurance policy that precludes coverage for ‘liabilities assumed under contract’” does not usually “apply to construction contracts.” In 2008, Ewing Construction Company built a set of tennis courts in Corpus Christi, according to Salisbury. “Shortly after construction was complete, according to the school district, ‘the courts started flaking, crumbling, and cracking, rendering them unusable for their intended purpose of hosting competitive tennis events.’” After the school district sued Ewing in state court, Ewing “turned the suit over to Amerisure, its CGL insurer, seeking a defense and indemnity. Amerisure denied all coverage, citing the contractual liability exclusion in its policy. This inspired Ewing to sue the carrier in federal district court for the Southern District of Texas.” After several rulings and appeals, the case eventually reached the Texas Supreme Court: “According to the Ewing court, the contract claims that Ewing failed to perform in a good and workmanlike manner ‘are substantively the same as its claims that Ewing negligently performed under the contract because they contain the same factual allegations and alleged misconduct.’ Failure to perform in a ‘good and workmanlike manner’ is functionally and substantively the same as performing negligently. ‘Accordingly,’ the Ewing court said, ‘we conclude that a general contractor who agrees to perform its construction work in a good and workmanlike manner, without more, does not enlarge its duty to exercise ordinary care in fulfilling its contract, thus it does not ‘assume liability’ for damages arising out of its defective work so as to trigger the Contractual Liability Exclusion.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of