BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance 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


    Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2020

    Florida Law: Interplay of SIR and the Made-Whole Doctrine

    Defense Dept. IG: White House Email Stonewall Stalls Border Wall Contract Probe

    A Tort, By Any Other Name, is Just a Tort: Massachusetts Court Bars Contract Claims That Sound in Negligence

    New Member Added to Seattle Law Firm Williams Kastner

    Spotting Problem Projects

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Differences in Types of Damages Matter

    You Cannot Always Contract Your Way Out of a Problem (The Case for Dispute Resolution in Mega and Large Complex Construction Projects)

    #5 CDJ Topic: David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525

    Brazil Builder Bondholders Burned by Bribery Allegations

    The Future of High-Rise is Localized and Responsive

    Failure to Consider Safety Element in Design Does Not Preclude Public Entity’s Discretionary Authority Under Design Immunity Defense

    Contract Disruptions: Navigating Supply Constraints and Labor Shortages

    Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Former Zurich Executive to Head Willis North America Construction Insurance Group

    Amazon Can be Held Strictly Liable as a Product Seller in New Jersey

    BHA Has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports NCHV and Final Salute at 2017 WCC Seminar

    Client Alert: California’s Unfair Competition Law (B&P §17200) Preempted by Federal Workplace Safety Law

    Opoplan Introduces Generative AI Tools for Home-Building

    Insured's Failure to Challenge Trial Court's Application of Exclusion Makes Appeal Futile

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

    Report Highlights Trends in Construction Tech, Digitization, and AI

    Yes, Indeedy. Competitive Bidding Not Required for School District Lease-Leasebacks

    Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds

    Is Everybody Single? More Than Half the U.S. Now, Up From 37% in '76

    Affordable Housing should not be Filled with Defects

    Narrow House Has Wide Opposition

    Duty To Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part

    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Honors Construction Attorney

    Fifth Circuit -- Damage to Property Beyond Insured’s Product/Work Not Precluded By ‘Your Product/Your Work Exclusion’

    Court of Appeal: Privette Doctrine Does Not Apply to Landlord-Tenant Relationships

    Waive Not, Want Not: Waivers and Releases on California Construction Projects

    Surprising Dismissal of False Claims Act Case Based on Appointments Clause - What Does It Mean?

    Lay Testimony Sufficient to Prove Diminution in Value

    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

    Coverage Denied for Faulty Blasting and Improper Fill

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

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold

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

    Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch

    President Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Requires a Viable Statutory Framework (PPP Statutes)[i]

    Indemnity Payment to Insured Satisfies SIR

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it)

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

    Client Alert: Michigan Insurance Company Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in California for Losses Suffered in Arkansas

    How SmartThings Wants to Automate Your Home

    Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

    Dispute between City and Construction Company Over Unsightly Arches
    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

    HOA Coalition Statement on Construction-Defects Transparency Legislation

    May 12, 2016 —
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Bill Ray / 303-885-1881 DENVER—The Homeownership Opportunity Alliance—a broad coalition of business groups, builders, elected officials and affordable housing advocates—provided the following statements on reports that there will be no construction-defects transparency legislation this session: “We are disappointed that negotiations broke down today and that event was immediately turned into an effort to use the media to score political points. The Homeownership Opportunity Alliance has worked on this issue for three years, and we are committed to finding a resolution that will address Colorado’s housing needs, especially through the development of attainable condominiums,” said Tom Clark, Chief Executive Officer of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation. “We understand the importance of this issue for our state, for working families, for first-time homebuyers and for anyone along the housing spectrum who is struggling to find a home. That's why we will remain committed to working on this issue.” The Homeownership Opportunity Alliance’s diverse coalition includes more than 50 organizations from across Colorado. The coalition also includes individual mayors and 14 different communities that have passed local ordinances to address attainable condominium development. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McClain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McClain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    January 17, 2013 —
    In a recent case, the Colorado Court of Appeals found that a contractor had a duty to a third party to warn it of a dangerous condition, even after the contractor had completed its work and the owner had accepted the contractor’s work.  Collard v. Vista Paving Corp., -- P.3d --, 2012 WL 5871446 (Colo. App. 2012).  While not an earth shattering or entirely new concept, the decision rendered in Collard directly accepted the foreseeability rule at the expense of the completed and accepted rule.  Id.
     
    In Collard, the City of Grand Junction (“the City”) hired Vista Paving Corp. (“Vista”) to construct two road medians according to the City’s plans and designs.  On July 9, 2007, Vista began work on the medians.  According to its contract with the City, Vista was responsible for traffic control during construction of the medians.  On July 19, 2007, Vista completed its construction of both medians.  On that date, the City’s project inspector conducted his final inspection of Vista’s work.  The City’s inspector then told Vista that its work had been completed and that Vista was authorized to leave the site.  Vista requested permission to remove the traffic control devices to which the City’s inspector agreed.  Vista removed all of its traffic control devices.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
    Mr. Iandiorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

    Two Firm Members Among the “Best Lawyers in America”

    September 01, 2016 —
    We are excited to announce that John P. Ahlers has been selected as a “Lawyer of the Year” in Construction Law, and John P. Ahlers and Paul R. Cressman, Jr. have been selected as “Best Lawyers in America” in Construction Litigation by Best Lawyers for 2017. Best Lawyers has recognized Mr. Ahlers and Mr. Cressman as “Best Lawyers in America” since 2007 and 2013, respectively. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    United States Supreme Court Backtracks on Recent Trajectory Away from Assertions of General Jurisdiction in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern

    August 01, 2023 —
    Washington, D.C. (June 28, 2023) – On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a sharply divided opinion that appears to backtrack on the Court’s steady trajectory away from assertions of general jurisdiction in recent years, e.g. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011), Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 2017, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017). Relying on a case from 1917, Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U. S. 93 (1917), Justice Gorsuch, writing on behalf of the plurality, (Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Sotomayor, and Jackson) (Justice Alito concurring) found that Norfolk Southern “consented” to jurisdiction in Mallory via 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301(a)(2)(i),(b) by registering to do business in Pennsylvania. This statute, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301, specifically permits jurisdiction over a corporation “incorporat[ed] under or qualifi[ed]as a foreign corporation under the laws of this Commonwealth … for any cause of action that may asserted against him, whether or not arising from acts enumerated in this section.” In Pennsylvania Fire, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution in connection with a Missouri law that required an out-of-state insurance company desiring to transact any business in the state to file paperwork agreeing to (1) appoint a state official to serve as the company’s agent for service of process and (2) accept service on that official as valid in any suit. After more than a decade of complying with the law, Pennsylvania Fire was served with process and argued that the Missouri law violated due process. The Court unanimously found that there was “no doubt” that Pennsylvania Fire could be sued in Missouri because it had agreed to accept service of process in Missouri on any suit as a condition of doing business there. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Charles S. Anderson, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Anderson may be contacted at Charles.Anderson@lewisbrisbois.com

    Cooperation and Collaboration With Government May Be on the Horizon

    September 17, 2018 —
    In Is the Pendulum Swinging on Agency and Government Contractor Cooperation?, Pillsbury attorneys Mike Rizzo, Glenn Sweatt and Kevin Massoudi discuss comments from the Department of Defense as well as recent good faith and fair dealing court decisions that point to and encourage improved contractor/government relationships. Their key takeaways include
    • Government officials are actively encouraging collaboration with, and less antagonism of, industry contractors.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Hunton Insurance Recovery Partner Michael Levine Quoted on Why Courts Must Consider the Science of COVID-19

    March 15, 2021 —
    One year into the COVID-19 pandemic, courts have issued hundreds of rulings in COVID-19 business interruption lawsuits, many favoring insurers. Yet those pro-insurer rulings are not based on evidence, much less expert opinion evidence. For insurers, ignorance is bliss. Despite early numbers in federal courts favoring insurers (state court decisions actually favor policyholders), the year ahead holds promise for policyholders. Fundamental science is the key. Indeed, as researchers continue to broaden their knowledge about COVID-19, it has become increasingly clear that scientific evidence supports coverage for policyholders’ claims. Reprinted courtesy of Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matt Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    November 06, 2013 —
    Pennsylvania may soon change how it adopts changes to its implementation of the Uniform Construction Code, but it’s not clear which method will be adopted, as the Pennsylvania House and Senate have competing bills. In the Senate bill (SB1023), the only change would be that any changes to the Uniform Building Code made by the International Code Council would automatically become part of the Pennsylvania building code, unless rejected by a two-thirds vote of the Pennsylvania UCC Review and Advisory Council. Under current Pennsylvania law, changes are adopted only with a two-thirds approval of the RAC. The House bill (HB1209), separates the commercial code from the residential code. Under the House proposal, the RAC would reject changes to the commercial building code on a two-thirds vote, otherwise they would be adopted, but in the residential building code, changes would be rejected unless the RAC approved them by a two-thirds vote. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    February 10, 2012 —

    The Hartford Courant reports that Connecticut is trying a very old tactic in a construction defect suit. The law library building at the University of Connecticut suffered from leaks which have now been repaired. The state waited twelve years after was complete to file lawsuit, despite that Connecticut has a six-year statute of limitations on construction defect claims. Connecticut claims that the statute of limitations does apply to the state.

    The state is arguing that a legal principle from the thirteenth century allows it to go along with its suit. As befits a medieval part of common law, the principle is called “nullum tempus occurrit regi,” or “time does not run against the king.” In 1874, the American Law Register said that nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae “has been adopted in every one of the United States” and “is now firmly established law.”

    In the case of Connecticut, Connecticut Solicitor General Gregory D’Auria said that “the statute of limitations does not apply to the state.” He also noted that “the state did not ‘wait’ to file the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed only after all other options and remedies were exhausted.”

    Connecticut also argued that “nullus tempus occurrit regi” applied in another construction defect case at the York Correctional Institution. The judge in that case ruled in December 2008 to let the case proceed. But in the library case, Judge William T. Cremins ruled in February 2009 that the statute of limitations should apply to the state as well. Both cases have been appealed, with the library case moving more quickly toward the Connecticut Supreme Court.

    Read the full story…

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