BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor 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


    Mixed Reality for Construction: Applicability and Reality

    Competition to Design Washington D.C.’s 11th Street Bridge Park

    A Lack of Sophistication With the Construction Contract Can Play Out In an Ugly Dispute

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    Construction Is Holding Back the Economy

    Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines

    Home Buyers will Pay More for Solar

    Pre-Covid Construction Contracts Unworkable as Costs Surge, Webuild Says

    Does a Landlord’s Violation of the Arizona Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Constitute Negligence Per Se?

    NLRB Finalizes Rule for Construction Industry Unions to Obtain Majority Support Representational Status

    Colorado Passes Compromise Bill on Construction Defects

    Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy

    Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

    Solicitor General’s Views to Supreme Court on Two Circuit Court Rulings that Groundwater Can be Considered “Waters of the United States”

    Remand of Bad Faith Claim Evidences Split Among Florida District Courts

    Economic Loss Not Property Damage

    Renters ‘Sold Out’ by NYC Pensions Press Mayor on Housing

    "My Bad, I Thought It Was in Good Faith" is Not Good Enough - Contractor Ordered to Pay Prompt Payment Penalties

    Tesla Finishes First Solar Roofs—Including Elon's House

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

    May Heat Wave Deaths Prompt New Cooling Rules in Chicago

    Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property

    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    Craig Holden Named Top 100 Lawyer by Los Angeles Business Journal

    Michigan Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade, Improving from "D+" Grade in 2018

    Don’t Waive Your Right to Arbitrate (Unless You Want To!)

    San Francisco OKs Revamped Settling Millennium Tower Fix

    New York Governor Expected to Sign Legislation Greatly Expanding Recoverable Damages in Wrongful Death Actions

    Alabama Federal Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Construction Defect Declaratory Judgment Action Due to Expanded Duty to Defend Standard

    Understanding Lien Waivers

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (03/01/23) – Mass Timber, IIJA Funding, and Distressed Real Estate

    California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

    Who's Who Legal Recognizes Two White and Williams Lawyers as Thought/Global Leaders in Insurance and Reinsurance

    Contractor's Agreement to Perform Does Not Preclude Coverage Under Contractual Liability Exclusion

    Last Parcel of Rancho del Oro Masterplan Purchased by Cornerstone Communties

    Buildings Don't Have To Be Bird-Killers

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Lets Broad General Release Stand in SB 800 Case

    First Suit to Enforce Business-Interruption Coverage Filed

    Broken Buildings: Legal Rights and Remedies in the Wake of a Collapse

    California Booms With FivePoint New Schools: Real Estate

    Florida Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

    The Riskiest Housing Markets in the U.S.

    Insurers May Not Be Required to Defend Contractors In a Florida §558 Proceeding

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

    U.K. Broadens Crackdown on Archaic Property Leasehold System

    New Hampshire Applies Crete/Sutton Doctrine to Bar Subrogation Against College Dormitory Residents

    California Case Is a Reminder That Not All Insurance Policies Are Alike Regarding COVID-19 Losses

    Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards
    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

    Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect Case

    February 21, 2013 —
    The builder has been sentenced to jail for theft. The building has been condemned over construction defects. And the settlement conference probably won’t bring an end to the case. The building in question is a condominium complex, located at 770 Sandy Street in Norristown, Pennsylvania. Bruce Fazio took out a $2.5 million construction loan to build it. And when it was done, there were inspections over construction defects, the building was condemned, and then the court ordered repair work. The city of Norristown has sued Fazio to recover the more than $1.5 million it took to repair the building and allow at least some condominium owners to move back in. The suit alleges that Norristown officials failed to properly inspect the construction work, and that inspectors were not properly certified. Further, it is alleged that secretaries and clerks signed off on inspection reports and certificates of occupancy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida's New Pre-Suit Notification Requirement: Retroactive or Prospective Application?

    February 05, 2024 —
    Florida’s newly formed Sixth District Court of Appeal (“Sixth DCA”) recently certified conflict with Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal on the issue of retroactive application of the pre-suit notice requirement contained in Florida Statute §627.70152.1 Earlier this year, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) held that the pre-suit notice provision applies retroactively, meaning, it applies to all suits filed after July 1, 2021, regardless when the insurance policy was issued.2 The Sixth DCA, in Hughes v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company,3 directly rejected the Fourth DCA’s interpretation and instead found a retroactive application of the pre-suit notice to be unconstitutional under Florida law. Prior to the Fourth DCA’s ruling, most trial courts had found no retroactive application for the pre-suit notice provision.4 In August 2021, shortly after Florida Statutes Section 627.70152 went into effect on July 1, 2021, Rebecca Hughes (“Hughes”) sued Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal Property”) for breach of contract after Universal Property denied her insurance claim. Hughes did not file a pre-suit notice under Section 627.70152. Universal Property moved to dismiss based on Hughes’ failure to file the pre-suit notice, arguing that the pre-suit notice requirement applies to all lawsuits filed after July 1, 2021, even if the claimant’s insurance policy was issued before the statute’s effective date. The trial court agreed with Universal Property and dismissed the lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Rice may be contacted at HRice@sdvlaw.com

    Construction Contract Clauses That May or May Not Have Your Vote – Part 3

    November 23, 2016 —
    Scope, time and cost provisions may be the most important clauses in your construction contract but they’re not the only ones which can impact your bottom line. The third in a multi-part series, here are some other important construction contract clauses that may determine whether you come out a winner.
      Provision: Supervisory Personnel, Employees, and Authority to Bind Provisions
    • Typical Provision: ”At all times during performance of the Work, Subcontractor shall have at the job site a competent supervisor approved by Owner. Subcontractor’s supervisor shall be deemed a representative of Subcontractor and all communications given to Subcontractor’s supervisor shall be as binding as if such communications were given to Subcontractor. Should Contractor object to Subcontractor’s supervisor’s presence at the job site, or the presence at the job site, or the presence at the job site of any other employee or agent of Subcontractor or any employee or agent of Subcontractor of Subcontractor, Subcontractor shall cause such persons to be replaced immediately as directed by Contractor.”
    • What it Means: Higher-tiered parties have a legitimate interest in ensuring that only competent individuals are allowed to perform work on a project and in ensuring that there are peaceable relations at a job site. Higher-tiered parties also have an interest in ensuring that directives and agreements made and reached in the field are followed. However, it is unreasonable for higher-tiered party or to require that such personnel be able to bind that lower-tiered party to agreements best decided by others.
    • What You Can Do: Lower-tiered parties should seek to include language which provides that only “reasonable” changes to personnel are allowed and, as necessary, limit by category or issue the types of items on-site personnel can bind the lower-tiered party to.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Kahana Feld Receives 2024 OCCDL Top Legal Organizations for DEI Award

    September 30, 2024 —
    IRVINE, CA – Sep. 12, 2024 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that the firm received the 2024 Top Legal Organizations for DEI Award from the Orange County Coalition for Diversity in the Law (OCCDL). The firm will be recognized at an awards gala at The Westin South Coast Plaza on October 3. Each year, the OCCDL recognizes individuals and organizations who have advanced diversity, equity, and inclusion in the Orange County legal community, whether through their excellence in the law or their direct efforts to promote DEI. Kahana Feld was recognized for programs such as its DEI book club and its regular webinars on topics like implicit bias. The firm supports various DEI organizations and initiatives in the Orange County area, including the Orange County Asian American Bar Association, the Orange County Women Lawyers Association, and the Jewish Federation of Orange County. The OCCDL is a collaborative effort of professionals from leading Orange County law firms and other community partners promoting the advancement of diverse attorneys in Orange County. The OCCDL partners with local schools and organizations to increase community involvement and provides education focused on diversity to students and attorneys. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Linda Carter, Kahana Feld
    Ms. Carter may be contacted at lcarter@kahanafeld.com

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    January 15, 2019 —
    On December 9, 2018, United States v. Spearin, [1] a landmark construction law case, will be 100 years old. The Spearin “doctrine”[2] provides that the owner impliedly warrants the information, plans and specifications which an owner provides to a general contractor. The contractor will not be liable to the owner for loss or damage which results from insufficiencies or defects in such information, plans and specifications. Some construction lawyers questioned whether the Spearin doctrine was still viable in Washington after the Washington Court of Appeals decided the recent case of King County v. Vinci Constr. Grand Projets.[3] Some concerned contractor industry groups even considered a “statutory fix” in the wake of the Court of Appeals Vinci decision. It is our opinion that the facts in the Vinci case are distinguishable and the Spearin doctrine is alive and thriving in Washington. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

    Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

    November 04, 2019 —
    Hyundai Construction Equipment Americas Inc. and its parent company are paying a $47-million civil penalty to settle federal allegations that the company sold construction vehicles that weren't certified to meet the appropriate Clean Air Act emissions standards, federal agencies say. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions

    October 26, 2017 —
    Last month, in Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc., 1 a California Court of Appeal clarified the meaning of the frequently asserted j.(5) and j.(6) exclusions of the standard commercial general liability policy; an issue the court deemed one of “first impression” for the state. The court took a close look at how courts nationwide handle the exclusions and relied on the policy language to come to a policyholder-friendly decision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com

    Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?

    September 01, 2011 —

    In Weitz Co., LLC v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado was asked to rule on a motion to disqualify counsel in an insurance coverage action. 11-CV-00694-REB-BNB, 2011 WL 2535040 (D. Colo. June 27, 2011). Motions to disqualify counsel are viewed with suspicion, as courts “must guard against the possibility that disqualification is sought to ‘secure a tactical advantage in the proceedings.’” Id. at *2 (citing Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T. Net, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1470, 1473 (D. Colo. 1996).

    Weitz Company, LLC (“Weitz”) is a general contractor and defendant in an underlying construction defect suit which had concluded before the action bringing rise to this order. In the underlying action, Weitz made third-party claims against subcontractors, including NPW Contracting (“NPW”). Weitz was listed as an additional insured under NPW’s policies with both Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company (collectively “the Carriers”). The Carriers accepted Weitz’s tender of defense under a reservation of rights. However, neither insurance carrier actually contributed to Weitz’s defense costs in the underlying action. At the conclusion of the construction defect action, the parties unsuccessfully attempted to apportion the attorney’s fees and costs. Eventually, Weitz brought suit against the recalcitrant carriers. The Lottner firm, which had previously represented Weitz in the underlying construction defect action, continued to represent Weitz in this coverage action. 

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Johnson can be contacted at johnson@hhmrlaw.com

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