BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling 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


    Contractor Gets Benched After Failing to Pay Jury Fees

    Extreme Weather Events Show Why the Construction Supply Chain Needs a Risk-Management Transformation

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    New York Court Rules on Architect's Duty Under Contract and Tort Principles

    Sarah P. Long Expands Insurance Coverage Team at Payne & Fears

    SDNY Vacates Arbitration Award for Party-Arbitrator’s Nondisclosures

    Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense

    Large Canada Employers and Jobsites Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines

    Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

    Window Installer's Alleged Faulty Workmanship On Many Projects Constitutes Multiple Occurrences

    Architects and Engineers Added to Harmon Towers Lawsuit

    A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Citizen Suits and the Summer of 2022

    Liquidated Damages: A Dangerous Afterthought

    Negligent Failure to Respond to Settlement Offer Is Not Bad Faith

    Florida Lien Law and Substantial Compliance vs. Strict Compliance

    Creative Avenue for Judgment Creditor to Collect a Judgment

    Here's How Much You Can Make by Renting Out Your Home

    Wall Street’s Favorite Suburban Housing Bet Is Getting Crowded

    As of July 1, 2024, California Will Require Most Employers to Have a Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and Training. Is Your Company Compliant?

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    Haight Proudly Supports JDC's 11th Annual Bike-A-Thon Benefitting Pro Bono Legal Services

    Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim

    Does the UCC Apply to the Contract for the Sale of Goods and Services

    Cincinnati Team Secures Summary Judgment for Paving Company in Trip-and-Fall Case

    Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

    Buyer Alleges Condo Full of Mold and Mice

    Quick Note: Unenforceable Language in Arbitration Provision

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “The Jury Is Still Out”

    Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

    DoD Will Require New Cybersecurity Standards in 2020: Could Other Agencies Be Next?

    Review of Recent Contractors State License Board Changes

    Home Buyer May Be Third Party Beneficiary of Property Policy

    U.S. Building Permits Soared to Their Highest Level in Nearly Eight Years

    Congratulations to Associate Madeline Arcellana on Her Selection as a Top Rank Attorney in Southern Nevada!

    Condominium Association Responsibility to Resolve Construction Defect Claims

    Force Majeure Recommendations

    There’s Still No Amazon for Housing, But Fintech’s Working on It

    Perovskite: The Super Solar Cells

    A New Digital Twin for an Existing Bridge

    Overview of New Mexico Construction Law

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team on Obtaining a Defense Verdict in Favor of their Subcontractor Client!

    Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

    Sean Shecter to Join American University Environmental and Energy Law Alumni Advisory Council

    The Economic Loss Rule and the Disclosure of Latent Defects: In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis

    Design Professional Liens: A Blueprint

    Unit Owners Have No Standing to Sue under Condominium Association’s Policy

    Solar Energy Isn’t Always Green

    Reminder: Your Accounting and Other Records Matter

    Framework, Tallest Mass Timber Project in the U.S., Is On Hold

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?
    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

    Feds Outline Workforce Rules for $39B in Chip Plant Funding

    April 10, 2023 —
    Semiconductor chip producers must pay their construction workforce prevailing wages and will be “strongly encouraged” to use project labor agreements if they want a piece of the $39 billion available in federal funding to support fabrication plant construction, expansion or modernization projects, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo says. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement Exclusions

    June 21, 2017 —
    In Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company v. Chaber, the West Virginia Supreme Court recently held that an insurance policy’s earth movement exclusion was unambiguous and applied to both manmade and natural earth movement. The Court also found that a narrow “ensuing loss” exception to the exclusion that provided coverage for glass breakage resulting from earth movement could not be extended to cover the entire loss. The Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company (Erie) insured five commercial buildings owned by Dmitri and Mary Chaber. One of the properties was damaged by a landslide, and the Chabers filed a claim with Erie. Erie asserted that the loss was excluded from coverage because the policy excluded coverage for losses caused by earth movement, which was defined to include earthquakes, landslides, subsidence of manmade mines, and earth sinking (aside from sinkhole collapse), rising or shifting. The exclusion stated that it applied “regardless of whether any of the above . . . is caused by an act of nature or is otherwise caused,” and also contained an anti-concurrent causation clause. However, there was an exception for glass breakage caused by earth movement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hannah E. Austin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Austin may be contacted at hea@sdvlaw.com

    The End of Eroding Limits Policies in Nevada is Just the Beginning

    August 28, 2023 —
    On June 3, 2023, Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo signed into law AB 398 (the Act) which modifies the Nevada insurance code by restricting the types of liability policies that can be offered in the state. The End of Eroding Limits Policies in Nevada First, the Act prohibits liability insurers from issuing “eroding limits” or “burning limits” policies. These are insurance policies under which defense costs decrease policy limits. Most professional liability policies are eroding limits policies. As of Oct. 1, 2023, insurers in Nevada may no longer issue or renew any policy where policy limits are eroded by defense costs. This change may result in higher premiums on these types of policies to compensate for the higher payouts they will now have to provide in Nevada. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

    Sixth Circuit Lifts Stay on OSHA’s COVID-19 Temporary Emergency Standards. Supreme Court to Review

    January 10, 2022 —
    As we round out the year, here’s a bit of news, with more likely to come, regarding the U.S. Department of Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) COVID-19 Temporary Emergency Standards (ETS). As we wrote earlier, on November 4, 2021, OSHA issued its ETS which applies to private employers with 100 or more employees (Covered Employers). Among other things, the ETS requires Covered Employers to have a COVID-19 vaccination policy requiring all employees to be fully vaccinated with certain exceptions, to provide for weekly testing of non-fully vaccinated employees, and to require face coverings. Under the ETS, Covered Employers were required to comply with the ETS other than the testing requirements by December 6, 2021 and to comply with the testing requirements beginning January 4, 2022. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    March 16, 2017 —
    Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWL Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379 COURT OF APPEAL EXTENDS GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. v. MIDTEC, INC., HOLDING THAT CIVIL CODE §936 CREATES A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD FOR CLAIMS AGAINST MATERIAL SUPPLIERS BROUGHT UNDER SB800. The Fourth District California Court of Appeal recently published its decision Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895 and §936) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier's negligence or breach of contract. Civil Code §936 states in relevant part, that it applies "to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract .... [T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any general contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, individual product manufacturer, or design professional with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply." Acqua Vista Homeowners Association (the "HOA") sued MWI, a supplier of Chinese pipe used in the construction of the Acqua Vista condominium development. The HOA's complaint asserted a single cause of action for violation of SB800 standards, and alleged that defective cast iron pipe was used throughout the building. After trial, the trial court entered a judgment against MWI in the amount of $23,955,796.28, reflecting the jury's finding that MWI was 92% responsible for the HOA's damages. MWI filed a motion for a directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that the HOA had failed to present any evidence that MWI had caused an SB800 violation as a result of its negligence or breach of contract, and had therefore failed to prove negligence and causation as required by SB800, citing to Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc.(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194. The trial court denied both motions, relying on the last sentence of Civil Code §936, which states in part, "[T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any ... material supplier ... with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply." The Court of Appeal reversed and ordered the trial court to enter judgment in favor of MWI. The Court of Appeal relied on the legislative history of S8800 and Greystone, which held that the first sentence of Civil Code §936 contains an "explicit adoption of a negligence standard" for S8800 claims against product manufacturers. The Court of Appeal reasoned that since §936 treats product manufacturers and material suppliers identically, the holding of Greystone must equally apply to material suppliers. Because the complaint did not state a common law cause of action for strict liability, the HOA was required to prove that the damages were caused by MWI' s negligence or breach of contract. Although, the Court of Appeal found that while the HOA's evidence may have supported a finding that the manufacturer of the leaking pipes was negligent, the HOA had not provided any evidence that MWI, the supplier, had failed to supply the type of pipe ordered, acted unreasonably in failing to detect any manufacturing defects present in the pipe, or damaged it during transportation. Accordingly, the HOA could not prove that the alleged S8800 violation was caused, in whole or in part, by MWI' s negligence, omission, or breach of contract. In light of the decision, homeowner and associations that allege only violations of SB800 standards without asserting a common law cause of action for strict liability cannot prevail by simply producing evidence of a violation, and are required to prove that violation was caused by the negligent act or omission, or breach of contract, of the defendant contractor, material supplier, and/or product manufacturer. Reprinted courtesy of Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq., Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Navigating Construction Contracts in the Energy Sector – Insights from Sheppard Mullin’s Webinar Series

    October 01, 2024 —
    Construction contracts in the energy sector involve unique challenges and risks, particularly with respect to bonds and mechanic’s liens. Understanding how to navigate these challenges is key to protecting your projects from disputes with general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. In our recent webinar, “Construction Contracts: Bond and Mechanic’s Lien Primer for Energy Projects,” I was joined by my Sheppard Mullin colleagues Chris Kolosov and Emily Anderson to discuss navigating common contract pitfalls and negotiation strategies to protect your interests. Here are our key takeaways.
    1. Know Local Mechanic’s Lien Laws: Mechanic’s liens are statutory and vary significantly from state to state. It is critical to understand the local laws and regulations at play in your project’s jurisdiction.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cesar Pereira, Sheppard Mullin
    Mr. Pereira may be contacted at cpereira@sheppardmullin.com

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Have No Class(ification)”

    May 13, 2024 —
    In fact, you didn’t even have a license. A federal court in Alabama was tasked with determining whether an unlicensed contractor could recover from an Alabama project owner for in excess of $1.7 million in construction infrastructure and site work performed. In fact, the contractor “did not have a valid general contractor’s license” in the state of Alabama when it “assumed work on the project from its predecessor company.” During the course of work on the project, the principals of an original contractor decided to go their separate ways, whereupon one of those principals announced that his new company would take over ongoing work. Roughly two months after the new company began working at the project, the contractor applied for a license with the Alabama Licensing Board of General Contractors – the license was issued within about 45 days. Then, some eight months later, the contractor added a “municipal and utilities” classification to its contractor license. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Will On-Site Robotics Become Feasible in Construction?

    April 13, 2017 —
    Over the last few years we’ve seen concepts and pilot projects for construction site robotics. Peter Novikov, Enrico Dini, Wolf D. Prix, and others have shown what on-site robotics can already accomplish. There are still hurdles to overcome, but the convergence of several technologies is making the automated construction site look attainable. Construction robotics is not a fad. In his keynote at AEC Hackathon Munich in April 2017, Professor Thomas Bock showed examples of construction robotics beginning in the early 1970s. The first construction robots were designed in Japan for manufacturing prefabricated modular homes. Already in the late 1970s, plans were made for extensive use of on-site construction robots. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aarni@aepartners.fi