BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code 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


    Two Firm Members Among the “Best Lawyers in America”

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    Why Is California Rebuilding in Fire Country? Because You’re Paying for It

    Saved By The Statute: The Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Bar Claims Under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law

    COVID-izing Your Construction Contract

    Putting for a Cure: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    Houston’s High Housing Demand due to Employment Growth

    Production of Pre-Denial Claim File Compelled

    Singer Ordered to Deposition in Construction Defect Case

    Insurance Broker Stole NY Contractor's Payment, Indictment Alleges

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

    Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell Recognized in 2024 Best Law Firm® Rankings

    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed

    US-Mexico Border Wall Bids Include Tourist Attraction, Solar Panels

    Terminating A Subcontractor Or Sub-Tier Contractor—Not So Fast—Read Your Contract!

    Colorado Defective Construction is Not Considered "Property Damage"

    Consolidated Case With Covered and Uncovered Allegations Triggers Duty to Defend

    Gene Witkin Celebrates First Anniversary as Member of Ross Hart’s Mediation Team

    Washington Court Denies Subcontractor’s Claim Based on Contractual Change and Notice Provisions

    Hirer Not Liable Under Privette Doctrine Where Hirer Had Knowledge of Condition, but not that Condition Posed a Concealed Hazard

    One Way Arbitration Provisions are Enforceable in Virginia

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded as Part of "Damages Because of Property Damage"

    Chambers USA Names Peckar & Abramson to Band 1 Level in Construction Law; 29 P&A Lawyers Recognized as Leading Attorneys; Six Regions and Government Contracts Practice Recognized

    Microsoft Urges the Construction Industry to Deliver Lifecycle Value

    North Carolina Soil & Groundwater Case to be Heard by U.S. Supreme Court

    Toll Brothers Report End of Year Results

    Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”

    More Musings on Why I Mediate

    Home Construction Slows in Las Vegas

    Disrupt a Broken Industry—The Industrial Construction Sandbox

    Duuers: Better Proposals with Less Work

    Inspectors Hurry to Make Sure Welds Are Right before Bay Bridge Opening

    California Senator Proposes Bill to Require Contractors to Report Construction Defect Cases

    Unpaid Hurricane Maria Insurance Claims, New Laws in Puerto Rico, and the Lesson for all Policyholders

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Tier 1 and Tier 2 “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2025

    ASBCA Validates New Type of Claim Related to Unfavorable CPARS Review [i]

    BLOK, a Wired UK Hottest 100 Housing Market Startup, Gets Funding from a Renowned Group of Investors

    Duty to Defend Sorted Between Two Insurers Based Upon Lease and Policies

    Security on Large Construction Projects. The Payment Remedy You Probably Never Heard of

    Insured's Expert Qualified, Judgment for Coverage Affirmed

    Policy Language Matters: New Jersey Court Bars Cleanup Coverage Under Broad Policy Terms

    Todd Seelman Recognized as Fellow of Wisconsin Law Foundation

    North Carolina Learns More Lessons From Latest Storm

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    Former Mayor Arrested for Violating Stop Work Order

    Panel Declares Colorado Construction Defect Laws Reason for Lack of Multifamily Developments

    NAHB Speaks Out Against the Clean Water Act Expansion

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

    U.S. Architecture Firms’ Billing Index Faster in Dec.
    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. Drawing 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

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    July 16, 2014 —
    The construction of the new eastern span of San Francisco’s bay bridge has been criticized for the $6.5 billion cost, welding crack violations, and alleged cover ups by Caltrans. The Sacramento Bee reported that the company Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co. Ltd. (ZPMC) “had never built a bridge.” In fact, ZPMC “was a manufacturer of giant cranes for container ports.” How then did ZPMC manage to obtain the contract? The Sacramento Bee stated that the company “had established a reputation as fast and cost-effective, offering savings of about $250 million compared to the competing bidder.” The project was already “years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget by political squabbles and construction delays” and there were some fears that the “old bridge might not survive a major quake.” Caltrans was told by an outside expert that ZPMC was a “high risk,” however, the company received a “contingent pass.” Sacramento Bee reported that an audit showed “ZPMC didn’t have enough qualified welders or inspectors…and routinely welded in the rain, a basic error that often causes defects.” Regardless, Caltrans signed off on the project. “In August 2007, Caltrans auditors approved ZPMC outright, although the firm still lacked adequate quality control, even for ‘fracture critical’ materials,” the Sacramento Bee reported. During the California Senate committee hearing in January, Doug Coe, a senior Caltrans engineer, said “’The race for time’ created overwhelming pressure to keep moving as planned….But there’s no excuse for building something defective like that because we are in a race for time.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Veterans Day – Thank You for Your Service

    December 05, 2022 —
    Happy Veterans Day[1] to our country’s servicemembers past and present! ACS would like to express its deepest gratitude and respect in saying thank you to those that have served, or are serving, in our armed forces. It undoubtedly takes incredible bravery, fortitude, integrity, respect, and a commitment to our country’s evolving ideals. Some of those same attributes that are necessary for service are also well-geared toward a post-military career in construction. As some already know, Veterans have unique construction contracting opportunities at both the state and federal level. The following is a high-level overview of the process and opportunities for veterans who are not aware or who are considering a career in construction. There are federal and state level opportunities for Veteran-owned businesses. The initial step in accessing federal and state level contracting opportunities is different for each but begins with certification/verification. At the federal level, effective January 1, 2023, all responsibilities for the verification of Veteran-owned small businesses (“ VSOB”) will transfer from the Department of Veterans Affairs to the Small Business Administration.[2] Verification is the process that establishes eligibility for access to Veteran-specific benefits, including certain government contracts and the purchase of surplus government property, by confirming that VSOBs and service-disabled Veteran-owned small businesses (“SDVOSB”) are operated by Veterans.[3] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Mr. Colburn may be contacted at travis.colburn@acslawyers.com

    Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements

    June 15, 2020 —
    On June 3, 2020, Congress passed the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act ("Act") which does exactly what it means to do: provide flexibility for PPP loan recipients. President Trump is expected to sign the bill into law within the week. The Act extends the "covered period" for Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") loans from the original eight weeks to 24 weeks or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. This extension provides much needed reprieve to small businesses who can utilize these funds to weather the economic effects of the Coronavirus Pandemic through 2020. The Act also revises the limitations on how small businesses utilize their PPP loans. While the CARES Act originally required 75% of the PPP loan to be used for payroll costs, this number has now been reduced to 60%. This means that up to 40% of the PPP loan can be used to cover mortgage obligations, rent, and other covered utility payments. The PPP loan payment deferral period has also been extended to align with the date on which the PPP loan's forgiveness amount is remitted to the lender. This should provide more certainty to small businesses on their payback obligations, if any. Recently, the Small Business Administration also released loan forgiveness applications to assist a business in calculating their loan forgiveness. While the SBA will likely revise it with the Act's passing, small businesses should look at the application's framework to prepare for submitting their loan forgiveness requests in the future. Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/. Reprinted courtesy of Greg Tross, Newmeyer Dillion and Michael Krueger, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Tross may be contacted at greg.tross@ndlf.com Mr. Krueger may be contacted at michael.krueger@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Jury Trials: A COVID Update

    July 18, 2022 —
    JURY TRIALS. Budd v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., — Wn. App. 2d –, 505 P.3d 120 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). (1) Courts must ensure that juries are randomly selected to provide a fair and impartial jury. (2) While the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the systematic exclusion of distinctive groups from jury pools, Washington Courts’ COVID-19 policy to excuse people who were ages 60 and older and did not wish to report for duty was not a “systematic” exclusion. Raymond Budd developed mesothelioma after working with a drywall product called “joint compound” from 1962 to 1972. He sued Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. and others for damages, contending that the company’s joint compound caused his illness. A jury returned a verdict in Budd’s favor and awarded him nearly $13.5 million. Kaiser appeals, claiming (1) insufficient randomness in the jury-selection process, (2) erroneous transcription of expert testimony, (3) lack of proximate causation, (4) lack of medical causation, (5) an improper jury instruction on defective design, (6) improper exclusion of sexual battery and marital discord evidence, (7) improper admission of post-exposure evidence, (8) improper exclusion of regulatory provisions, and (9) a failure to link its product to Budd’s disease. The Court of Appeals, Division 1, affirmed the verdict in favor of Budd. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

    White and Williams Selected in the 2024 Best Law Firms ranked by Best Lawyers®

    December 04, 2023 —
    White and Williams LLP is proud to be selected in the 2024 Best Law Firms ranked by Best Lawyers®. The firm was recognized in the National Rankings in four practice areas including both Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Insurance Law (Tier 1). In addition, the firm’s office locations in Philadelphia, New York City, Boston, Baltimore, Delaware and New Jersey were recognized for 30 practice areas in the Metropolitan rankings. Achieving a tiered ranking in Best Law Firms signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise. The Best Law Firms research methodology includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. The 2024 Best Law Firms rankings can be accessed at www.bestlawfirms.com. 2024 Best Law Firms
      National Tier 1
    • Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
    • Insurance Law
      National Tier 3
    • Construction Law
    • Litigation – Construction
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Safety Guidance for the Prevention of the Coronavirus on Construction Sites

    May 25, 2020 —
    Although construction projects are generally allowed to proceed under most COVID-19 stay at home orders, owners and contractors need to know how to proceed safely on their construction sites. Not only do workers and others on site need to be protected, but implementation of these protocols is also critical to avoid potential liabilities. Last week, the California Department of Industrial Relations – Division of Occupational Safety & Health (CAL/OSHA) released guidance regarding safety and health procedures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at construction sites. A link to the CAL/OSHA Safety and Health Guidance is provided here. While the guidance states that it is not imposing any new legal obligations, it is imperative for businesses to not only be aware of these safety practices, but to incorporate these practices as appropriate on each construction site to protect its employees as well as subcontractors, suppliers and others who may be present on site. Otherwise, owners and contractors face potential exposure to regulatory action, including potential penalties and other liabilities, if they fail to properly incorporate these guidelines into the Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) at each construction site. Now is the time to update your current Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) to include recommended protocols for preventing the spread of the Coronavirus. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com

    Appeals Court Rules that Vertical and Not Horizontal Exhaustion Applies to Primary and First-Layer Excess Insurance

    August 31, 2020 —
    In Santa Fe Braun v. Ins. Co. of North America (No. A151428, filed 7/13/20), a California appeals court relied on Montrose Chemical Corp. of California v. Superior Court (2020) 9 Cal.5th 215 (Montrose III), to hold that absent express policy wording to the contrary, horizontal exhaustion of all primary insurance is not required in order to trigger first-layer excess coverage. Beginning in 1992, Braun was sued for asbestos injuries from refineries it constructed and maintained. Braun had primary coverage and multiple layers of excess coverage for the relevant time period. After defending for years, the primary insurers reached a settlement under which they paid their limits into a trust which would fund the ongoing defense and settlements. Certain of the excess insurers settled and also contributed to the trust. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Do Engineers Owe a Duty to Third Parties?

    June 10, 2015 —
    A Texas Court of Appeals, in USA Walnut Creek, DST v. Terracon Consultants, Inc., recently ruled that an engineer owed a duty to the buyer of an apartment complex, even though the engineer had no contractual relationship with the buyer. This is an expansion of the duty professionals owe on construction projects and could signal a change in the law. In the case, Walnut Creek purchased a three year old apartment complex. A few years after taking possession, Walnut Creek noticed problems with the apartments, including cracking foundations, walls, breaking windows, and out of square door frames. Walnut Creek sued the developer and general contractor, alleging construction defects. The developer claimed that the engineer, Terracon, was at fault and Walnut Creek added Terracon to the lawsuit, asserting that Terracon was negligent in performing engineering services during construction. Terracon asked the court to dismiss the claim, arguing that it did not owe a duty to Walnut Creek. Walnut Creek in turn argued that engineers do owe a duty to subsequent owners. The trial court dismissed the case against the engineer and Walnut Creek appealed. The appellate court reversed the trial court, finding that the engineer did owe a duty to subsequent purchasers. The court seemed persuaded by the allegations that the engineer actually created the construction defects which were the basis for the litigation. 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