BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    Construction Defects and Second Buyers in Pennsylvania

    FEMA Offers Recovery Tips for California Wildfire Survivors

    Las Vegas, Back From the Bust, Revives Dead Projects

    Flexible Seattle Off-Ramp Would Retain Shape in Quake

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Tightens Requirements for Co-Worker Affidavits in Asbestos Cases

    Construction Safety Technologies – Videos

    Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

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

    You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. But When it Comes to the CalOSHA Appeals Board, They Can Say it Any Way They Please

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

    The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA

    May Heat Wave Deaths Prompt New Cooling Rules in Chicago

    Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Insurer Must Defend Oil Company Against Entire Lawsuit

    Prevailing Parties Entitled to Contractual Attorneys’ Fees Under California CCP §1717 Notwithstanding Declaration That Contract is Void Under California Government Code §1090

    Are Housing Prices Poised to Fall in Denver?

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 37 White And Williams Lawyers

    The Unthinkable Has Happened. How Should Contractors Respond?

    The Future Has Arrived: New Technologies in Construction

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    The First UK Hospital Being Built Using AI Technology

    Architect Responds to Defect Lawsuit over Defects at Texas Courthouse

    Putting 3D First, a Model Bridge Rises in Norway

    Virtual Reality for Construction

    Construction Picks Up Post-COVID and So Do Claims (and A Construction Lawyer Can Help)

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    Here's Proof Homebuilders are Betting on a Pickup in the Housing Market

    Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings

    A Court-Side Seat: SCOTUS Clarifies Alien Tort Statute and WOTUS Is Revisited

    America’s Factories Weren’t Built to Endure This Many Hurricanes

    Third Circuit Follows Pennsylvania Law - Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship Does Not Arise from an Occurrence

    2018 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects

    Failing to Adopt a Comprehensive Cyber Plan Can Lead to Disaster

    Maine Court Allows $1B Hydropower Transmission Project to Proceed

    California Supreme Court Holds that Requirement of Prejudice for Late Notice Defense is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State for Choice of Law Analysis

    5 Impressive Construction Projects in North Carolina

    Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Nine Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Recognized as Southern California Super Lawyers

    Dave McLain included in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    Manhattan Townhouse Sells for a Record $79.5 Million

    Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

    A WARNing for Companies

    Third Circuit Vacates Judgment for Insurer on Alleged Construction Defect Claim

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    New Jersey Supreme Court Issue Important Decision for Homeowners and Contractors

    Florida Issues Emergency Fraud Prevention Rule to Protect Policyholders in Wake of Catastrophic Storms

    So a Lawsuit Is on the Horizon…
    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

    Woman Files Suit for Property Damages

    January 15, 2014 —
    Debra Lovejoy filed suit on December 5th 2013 in Virginias Kanawha Circuit Court claiming that her home sustained damaged after a highway was built near her property, according to The West Virginia Record. The West Virginia Water Company, Carpenter Reclamation Inc., and the West Virginia Department of Transportation-Division of Highways were named in the suit. “Lovejoy claims Carpenter disturbed the contours of the surface, thereby weakening the support for the bank extending along the highway,” reports Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record. Asbury continues: “As a result, the bank has slipped significantly over time, according to the suit.” Lovejoy claims the bank needs to be repaired in order to prevent it from further slips, and is pursuing compensation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Plaintiff’s Mere Presence in Area Where Asbestos is Present Insufficient to Establish Bystander Exposure

    October 21, 2015 —
    In Schiffer v. CBS Corporation (filed 9/9/15; modified 9/30/15), the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant asbestos insulation manufacturer finding plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of bystander exposure. Plaintiff James Schiffer (“Schiffer”) alleged that while working at the Ginna Gas & Electric power plant in the summer of 1969, he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials during installation of equipment and insulation manufactured by CBS Corporation’s predecessor-in-interest, Westinghouse. After developing mesothelioma, Schiffer and his wife sued numerous entities, including CBS, which successfully moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Schiffer failed to submit evidence that he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials. Reprinted courtesy R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Counsel Investigating Coverage Can be Sued for Invasion of Privacy

    January 28, 2019 —
    In Strawn v. Morris, Polich & Purdy (No. A150562, filed 1/4/19), a California appeals court held that policyholders could state a claim for invasion of privacy against an insurer’s coverage counsel and law firm, where the counsel had disseminated inadvertently produced tax returns to forensic accountants while evaluating coverage. In Strawn, a couple’s home was destroyed by fire and the husband was prosecuted for arson, but the criminal case was dropped. Notwithstanding, their insurance claim was denied on the ground that the husband intentionally set the fire and fraudulently concealed his actions. In addition to the insurance company, the insureds also named the carrier’s coverage counsel and his firm in the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, alleging causes of action for elder financial abuse and invasion of privacy. 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

    A Good Examination of Fraud, Contract and Negligence Per Se

    February 28, 2018 —
    I have spoken on several occasions here at Construction Law Musings about the interplay (or lack thereof) between fraud and contract as it relates to construction in Virginia. The general rule is that fraud and contract claims don’t mix and a fraud claim in the face of a contractual one is likely to be dismissed. However, there are exceptions to this rule as there are to just about every legal rule (we construction lawyers would be out of a job without them). A good examination of the interplay between fraud and contract was set out by the Eastern District of Virginia federal court in Zuberi et al v. Hirezi et al. In that case the Zuberis purchased a home from the Hirezis and later filed suit alleging that the Hirezis concealed serious structural defects that made the house uninhabitable and unsellable. Among the many claims by the Zuberis were those fro fraud, fraudulent inducement, constructive fraud, negligence per se, violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, and civil conspiracy. In short, they were out for blood. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    ASCE Statement on EPA Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan

    December 27, 2021 —
    WASHINGTON, DC. – The American Society of Civil Engineers applauds the Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan released yesterday by the Environmental Protection Agency to help communities across the country remove lead pipes out of their drinking water systems. Access to clean and safe drinking water is critical to public health and economic prosperity, and ASCE's 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. gave a grade of C- for the drinking water category. It is estimated that as many as 10 million American households still have lead water pipes in use, which can put at risk the health and safety of families, particularly children. For utilities, moving forward with completing an inventory of lead service lines as part of the Lead and Copper Rule is a critical step, so we can get a better national picture of the scope of the problem. This plan will allocate nearly $3 billion from the recently passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to states for lead service line replacements in FY 2022 and will prioritize communities with the highest lead levels. While additional investment will be needed, it is a significant down-payment on a national shared priority of clean drinking water for all Americans. It will allow utilities of all sizes to accelerate their rate of lead pipe replacement and offer technical assistance to those communities just embarking on these types of projects. For more information about the American Society of Civil Engineers, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sixth Circuit Rejects Claim for Reverse Bad Faith

    June 17, 2015 —
    The Sixth Circuit rejected the insurer's claim for reverse bad faith against its insured who made a fraudulent claim after her home was destroyed by fire. State Auto Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hargis, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7475 (6th Cir. April 23, 2015). The insured's home burned to the ground early one morning. She filed what she would later admit was a fraudulent insurance claim with State Auto for approximately $866,000. State Auto paid in excess of $425,000 before filing an action to declare the policy void. State Farm's investigation eventually led to the insured's admission that she had a friend burn down her house to collect insurance proceeds. An indictment was issued and the insured pled guilty. She was sentenced to a 60-month term and was ordered to pay restitution to State Auto totaling $672,497. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    July 14, 2016 —
    Ahlers & Cressman PLLC attorneys have again been recognized as “Super Lawyers” and “Rising Stars” (attorneys under 40 years of age, or practicing under 10 years) in Washington for 2016. Six Ahlers & Cressman attorneys were recognized as Super Lawyers: John P. Ahlers, Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Scott R. Sleight, Bruce A. Cohen, Lawrence S. Glosser, and Brett M. Hill. Additionally, three of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized as Rising Stars: Ryan W. Sternoff, James R. Lynch, and Lindsay K. Taft. Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a multiphase selection process, involving peer nominations, evaluations, and third-party research. Each attorney candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Only five percent of the total lawyers in Washington State are selected for the honor of Super Lawyer, and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for the honor of Rising Star. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Court Construes Breach of Contract Exclusion Narrowly in Duty-to-Defend Case

    September 10, 2018 —
    In a victory for policyholders, a recent decision from the Western District of Texas narrowly construed a common breach-of-contract exclusion and held that the insurer had a duty to defend its insured against an underlying lawsuit over construction defects. The allegations potentially supported a covered claim, as the conduct of the insured’s subcontractor could have been an independent, “but for” cause of the property damage at issue, thereby triggering the insurer’s duty to defend. In Slay, the insured – a construction company – was hired by a city to design and construct a municipal sports complex, including Little League baseball fields, a softball field, parking lots, and a swimming pool. The construction company hired a subcontractor to perform various services on the project, including paving parking lots and laying the cement for the pool. After completing the project, one of the construction company’s employees noticed cracking in the parking lot and the pool. The construction company notified the city and tried to work out a repair plan, but the city refused and eventually sued, alleging construction defects and asserting claims for breach of contract and negligence. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of