BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut ada design 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


    PATH Station Designed by Architect Known for Beautiful Structures, Defects, and Cost Overruns

    3D Printing Innovations Enhance Building Safety

    Civil RICO Case Against Johnny Doc Is Challenging

    Additional Insured Status Survives Summary Judgment Stage

    Michigan Lawmakers Pass $4.7B Infrastructure Spending Bill

    EEOC Sues Schuff Steel, J.A. Croson in New Racial Harassment Cases

    The Future of High-Rise is Localized and Responsive

    Bought a New Vacation Home? I’m So Sorry

    Privileged Communications With a Testifying Client/Expert

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics

    Vancouver’s George Massey Tunnel Replacement May Now be a Tunnel Instead of a Bridge

    Louisiana 13th in List of Defective Bridges

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    Attorneys' Fee Clauses are Engraved Invitations to Sue

    Not So Fast, My Friend: Pacing and Concurrent Delay

    Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Coverage for Named Insured's Defective Work

    Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

    The Proposed House Green New Deal Resolution

    Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

    No Duty to Defend Under Renter's Policy

    Unlocking the Potential of AI and Chat GBT in Construction Management

    Giant Gas Pipeline Owner, Contractor in $900M Payment Battle

    Firm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in Germany

    DC Wins Largest-Ever Civil Penalty in US Housing Discrimination Suit

    "Ongoing Storm" Rules for the Northeast (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York & Rhode Island)

    Torrey Pines Court Receives Funding for Renovation

    CA Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Exceptions to Interim Adverse Judgment Rule Defense to Malicious Prosecution Action

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Just Hanging Around”

    Are Modern Buildings Silently Killing Us?

    General Release of Contractor Upheld Despite Knowledge of Construction Defects

    South Carolina School District Investigated by IRS and FBI

    Techniques for Resolving Construction Disputes

    Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements

    LEEDigation: A Different Take

    Florida’s New Civil Remedies Act – Bulletpoints As to How It Impacts Construction

    Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose

    Resolve to Say “No” This Year

    Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation

    New Opportunities for “Small” Construction Contractors as SBA Adjusts Its Size Standards Again Due to Unprecedented Inflation

    California’s Wildfire Dilemma: Put Houses or Forests First?

    New York Court Holds Radioactive Materials Exclusion Precludes E&O Coverage for Negligent Phase I Report

    Owner’s Slander of Title Claim Against Contractor Recording Four Separate Mechanics Liens Fails Under the Anti-SLAPP Statute

    Construction Halted in Wisconsin Due to Alleged Bid Issues

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/10/24) – New Type of Nuclear Reactor, Big Money Surrounding Sports Stadiums, and Positivity from Fannie Mae’s Monthly Consumer Survey

    Another Setback for the New Staten Island Courthouse

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds Lay Witness Can Provide Opinion Testimony on the Value of a Property If the Witness Had an Opportunity to Form a Reasoned Opinion

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 43 White and Williams Lawyers

    Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly
    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

    California Supreme Court Holds that Design Immunity Does Not Protect a Public Entity for Failure to Warn of Dangerous Conditions

    June 26, 2023 —
    Get ready for more street signage. The California Supreme Court, in Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, has held that Government Code section 830.6, which protects public entities from claims alleging dangerous conditions on public property if the design was approved by a public agencies’ legislative body or their designee, does not shield a public entity from claims that the public entity should have warned the public of known dangers. We wrote about the Tansavatdi case a while back when it was before the Court of Appeals. The case involves a very sad set of facts. A young boy was killed by a semi-trailer while waiting at a stoplight on his bicycle in Rancho Palos Verdes, California. The area where the boy was killed did not have a bicycle lane although stretches of the same road did. The 2nd District Court of Appeal, on appeal from a motion for summary judgment, held that even if the public entity could establish that it was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the trial court should have considered whether the public entity should have been liable for failing to warn of a dangerous condition on public property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Redeux)

    September 17, 2014 —
    This past week I gave a presentation on a panel entitled “Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” before my local bar association. Thanks to those who attended, my co-presenters and the bar association for sponsoring. Rather than letting my notes gather dust I thought I would share some of the highlights. What is a bid protest? A bid protest is the procedure by which a bidder protests the rejection of its bid or award of a public works contract to another bidder. A bid protest may occur in one of two situations: (1) A public entity rejects the bid of an apparent low bidder and the apparent low bidder protests the rejection; or (2) A public entity awards the contract to the apparent low bidder and another bidder protests the award. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

    SB 721 – California Multi-Family Buildings New Require Inspections of “EEEs”

    December 19, 2018 —
    Many in the construction industry and multi-family development field have been closely following Senate Bill 721, or the “Balcony Bill,” regarding new requirements for building owners associated with decks and balconies. After almost a dozen amendments, the “Balcony Bill” finally passed in the state legislature with an overwhelming majority and was signed into law September 17th, 2018, by Governor Jerry Brown. Balconies and decks, called “Exterior Elevated Elements” (“EEE”) in the statute, are common features in most multi-family buildings in California – where better to enjoy the California sun? However, many of the structures have proven to be problematic at best due to complex intersections of construction trades and design issues as well as limited understanding and effectuation of maintenance. Indeed, the “Balcony Bill” arose largely out of an outcry following the 2015 balcony collapse in Berkeley in 2015, which left six young people dead and another seven injured. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    May 10, 2012 —

    Coverage for damages resulting from faulty workmanship in the construction of an apartment complex was at issue in The Bartram, LLC v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44535 (N.D. Fla. March 30, 2012).

    The owner of the apartments, Bartram, had primary coverage and three layers of excess coverage. Each contract excluded loss from faulty workmanship. The policies provided, however, "if loss or damage by a Covered Cause of Loss results, we will pay for that resulting loss or damage."

    Bartram contended water intrusion occurred because of faulty workmanship, which caused damage to the buildings’ exterior and interior finishes, wood sheathing, framing, balcony systems, drywall ceilings and stucco walls. This damage was separate from the work needed to simply fix the faulty workmanship. Therefore, Bartram argued, the ensuing losses that resulted from the water intrusion was covered.

    The insurer argued the ensuing loss exception was not applicable if the ensuing loss was directly related to the original excluded loss.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct

    August 19, 2015 —
    In Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (filed 8/13/15, Case No. S208130), the California Supreme Court held a government entity is not categorically immune from liability where the plaintiff alleges a dangerous condition of public property caused the plaintiff’s injury, but did not cause the third party conduct which precipitated the accident. The case arises out of a traffic collision by which the negligent driving of a third party motorist caused another car to careen into a tree planted in the center median owned and maintained by the City of Los Angeles (“City”). Of the four occupants in the car that collided with the tree, three died and the fourth was badly injured. The parents of two of the occupants sued the City for a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code Section 835. The plaintiffs alleged the roadway was in a dangerous condition because the trees in the median were too close to the traveling portion of the road, posing an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists who might lose control of their vehicles. The City successfully moved for summary judgment, which plaintiffs appealed. On review, the Court of Appeal affirmed holding the tree was not a dangerous condition as a matter of law because there was no evidence that the tree had contributed to the criminally negligent driving of the third party motorist. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Laura C. Williams and Lawrence S. Zucker II Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com And Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Walmart Seeks Silicon Valley Vibe for New Arkansas Headquarters

    June 18, 2019 —
    Walmart Inc. took inspiration from McDonald’s Corp., Apple Inc. and locations like Stanford University when designing the new headquarters that will start taking shape this summer. The 350-acre campus will be located just a few blocks east of Walmart’s current home, a patchwork of more than 20 buildings in Bentonville, Arkansas. It will feature bike paths, food trucks and outdoor meeting areas -- part of an effort to lure younger, digitally-savvy workers to northwestern Arkansas. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Boyle, Bloomberg

    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

    School District Settles Over Defective Athletic Field

    December 11, 2013 —
    The Hillsboro, Oregon School District has settled a lawsuit with Mahlum Architects of Portland, one of the four companies sued by the school district over problems with a soccer field. The total lawsuit was for $1.7 million. The architects have settled for $25,000. The manufacturer of Astro Turf also settled with the school for an as-yet undisclosed amount. What the school describes as the “primary defendants” have yet to settle. The school had to close the soccer field when drainage problems lead to large holes in the playing field. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of