BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs 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


    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Alan Packer Selected to the 2017 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    Look to West Africa for the Future of Green Architecture

    Alabama Supreme Court Reverses Determination of Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    Homeowner's Mold Claim Denied Due to Spoilation

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

    CGL Policy Covering Attorney’s Fees in Property Damage Claims

    New Home for the Aged Suffers Construction Defects

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds That the Implied Warranty of Habitability Does Not Extend to Subcontractors

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Denial of Construction Defect Claim

    Do You Have A Florida’s Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act Claim

    Fourth Circuit Rejects Application of Wrap-Up Exclusion to Additional Insured

    “Source of Duty,” Tort, and Contract, Oh My!

    Definitions Matter in Illinois: Tenant Held Liable Only for Damage to Apartment Unit

    Alabama Supreme Court States Faulty Workmanship can be an Occurrence

    Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    Charles Eppolito Appointed Vice-Chair of the PBA Judicial Evaluation Commission and Receives Prestigious “President’s Award”

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

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court

    Alaska District Court Sets Aside Rulings Under New Administration’s EO 13795

    Contractor Prevailing Against Subcontractor On Common Law Indemnity Claim

    How Concrete Mistakes Added Cost to the Recent Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge Project

    Sacramento Army Corps District Projects Get $2.1 Billion in Supplemental Appropriation

    Angela Cooner Receives Prestigious ASA State Advocate Award

    How Robotics Can Improve Construction and Demolition Waste Sorting

    Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Recovery Practice, Andrea DeField and Cary D. Steklof, Recognized as Legal Elite

    Fourth Circuit Issues New Ruling on Point Sources Under the CWA

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

    Nevada Provides Independant Counsel When Conflict Arises Between Insurer and Insured

    The Future of High-Rise is Localized and Responsive

    Toll Brothers Climbs After Builder Reports Higher Sales

    Ninth Circuit Holds Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Applies Beyond All-Risk Policies

    The Legal 500 U.S. 2024 Guide Names Peckar & Abramson a Top Tier Firm in Construction Law and Recognizes Nine Attorneys

    Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

    ASCE Statement On White House "Accelerating Infrastructure Summit"

    CalOSHA Updates its FAQ on its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Regulations

    Home Buyers will Pay More for Solar

    Appeals Court Overruled Insured as Additional Insured on Subcontractor’s Commercial General Liability Policy

    Texas Supreme Court Declines to Waive Sovereign Immunity in Premises Defect Case

    House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule

    The New “White Collar” Exemption Regulations

    Too Late for The Blame Game: Massachusetts Court Holds That the Statute of Repose Barred a Product Manufacturer from Seeking Contribution from a Product Installer

    Surveys: Hundreds of Design Professionals See Big COVID-19 Business Impacts

    Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense by U.S. News/Best Lawyers

    Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

    Congratulations to Haight’s 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben and Associate Laura Puhala Win Summary Judgment in Favor of Insurer, Determining it has No Duty to Defend

    Privette: The “Affirmative Contribution” Exception, How Far Does It Go?
    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

    The Cheapest Place to Buy a House in the Hamptons

    August 20, 2018 —
    Figuring out how much a home is worth in a vacation destination is often an uphill battle. Whereas normal property markets have prices that are tied closely to square footage, size of a lot, quality of a building, and its proximity to basic services, many of those calculations go out the window when it comes to a market comprised of second homes. “Nobody needs anything out here,” says Chris Foglia, a broker at the Hamptons-based Daniel Gale Sotheby’s International Realty. “They all want.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg

    WARN Act Exceptions in Response to COVID-19

    April 13, 2020 —
    California’s WARN Act requires employers of certain covered establishments to provide 60 days written notice of any mass layoff, relocation, or termination. This notice is required to be given to employees and the Employment Development Department. An employer’s failure to comply with this requirement can result in being held liable for back-pay and value of the cost of any benefits to which the affected employee(s) may have been entitled for up to a maximum of 60 days. Due to the COVID-19 crisis and emergency circumstances in which many employers now find themselves, the Governor of California has issued Executive Order N-31-20, which temporarily suspends the 60-days advance notice requirement and the provisions that impose liability and penalties on an employer for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency. Reprinted courtesy of Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Kyle R. DiNicola, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Mr. DiNicola may be contacted at kdinicola@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    “Wait! Do You Have All Your Ducks in a Row?” Filing of a Certificate of Merit in Conjunction With a Complaint

    January 13, 2020 —
    In Barrett v. Berry Contr. L.P., No. 13-18-00498-CV, 2019 Tex. LEXIS 8811, the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals of Texas considered, among other things, the procedural timing requirements of filing a certificate of merit in conjunction with a complaint. The court concluded that the proper reading of the statute requires a plaintiff to file a certificate of merit with the first complaint naming the defendant as a party. In Barrett, after sustaining injuries while working at a refinery, David Barrett (Barrett) filed suit against Berry Contracting, LP and Elite Piping & Civil, Ltd. on July 6, 2016. In Barrett’s first amended complaint, which he filed on August 23, 2016, Barrett added Govind Development, LLC (Govind) as another defendant. Barrett subsequently filed a second amended complaint (omitting Govind) and, on December 27, 2017, shortly before the statute of limitations ran, a third amended complaint (reasserting claims against Govind). On January 28, 2018, after the statute of limitations period ran, Barrett filed a certificate of merit. Govind filed a motion to dismiss the claim, asserting that Barrett violated the statute that required a certificate of merit to be filed with the complaint, Tex. Civ. Prac & Rem. Code §150.002.
    Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §150.002(a) states, In any action or arbitration proceeding for damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional, a claimant shall be required to file with the complaint an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect, licensed professional engineer, registered landscape architect or registered professional land surveyor…
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    June 09, 2016 —
    While construction can sometimes be risky, construction litigation is almost always expensive. This volatile mix of risk and expense has made risk shifting, through indemnity and insurance, a primary goal and concern of project owners, contractors and suppliers alike. Construction insurers know this all too well and insurers, even between themselves, seek to shift risk. As one primary insurer found, however, risk shifting provisions in their policies – specifically, one which sought to shift the cost of defense to another insurer – is not without its limitations. 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

    9th Circuit Plumbs Through the Federal and State False Claims Acts

    January 16, 2024 —
    You may have heard of the False Claims Act and know that it penalizes companies and individuals in contract with the government who present false claims. The federal False Claims Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to penalize profiteers during the Civil War who were selling the Union Army moth eaten blankets, boxes of sawdust instead of guns, and sometimes re-selling the Army calvary horses several times over. Since then, many states, including California, as well as municipalities, have enacted their own false claim statutes. As currently written, the federal False Claims Act provides for statutory penalties against any person who:
    1. “[K]nowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval”;
    2. “[K]nowingly makes, uses or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim”;
    3. “[H]as possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to be used, by the Government an knowingly delivers, or causes to be delivered, less than all of that money or 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

    Specification Challenge; Excusable Delay; Type I Differing Site Condition; Superior Knowledge

    January 02, 2024 —
    An Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals dispute, Appeal of L.S. Black-Loeffel Civil Constructors JV, ASBCA No. 62402, 2023 WL 5827241 (ASBCA 2023), involved which party bore liability for delay—the federal government or the prime contractor–based on various legal theories. Without detailing the factual details, a number of interesting legal issues were raised in this dispute including (1) a defective specification challenge, (2) excusable delay, (3) Type I differing site condition, and (4) superior knowledge. These legal issues are discussed below. 1. Specification Challenge (Defective Specifications) The contractor claimed that the government’s specifications were defective in regard to a thermal control plan. The government countered that the specifications were not design specifications but performance specifications. The specifications were performance based because they did not tell the contractor how to achieve the performance-based criteria. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Can General Contractors Make Subcontractors Pay for OSHA Violations?

    March 05, 2015 —
    OSHA has long held the opinion that general contractors may be held liable for subcontractor’s OSHA violations and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, overseeing the Midwest, has agreed since 2009. To combat this risk, general contractors would be well served to incorporate targeted indemnity provisions into their subcontracts that require subcontractors to pay for all claims and costs associated with subcontractor caused OSHA violations. OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy, a/k/a OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-124, allows OSHA to cite multiple employers at a single worksite for creating a hazard, or for failing to prevent or correct a hazard, even if their own workers are not exposed to the hazard. A ‘‘controlling’’ or ‘‘correcting’’ employer is liable for hazards that it did not take ‘‘reasonable care’’ to detect and prevent. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    March 27, 2019 —
    In what the Court of Appeals describes as “the infamous government-created environmental disaster known at the Flint Water Crisis,” a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that some of the government personnel responsible for this disaster may be liable, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for monetary damages based on the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The case is Guertin, et al., v. State of Michigan, et al., decided on January 4, 2019. On April 25, 2014, the City of Flint, MI, facing a financial crisis, agreed to switch its drinking water supply from the water provided by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department to untreated water available from the Flint River that would be treated in the waterworks owned and operated by the City. However, the City waterworks could not provide the needed treatment, which resulted in the corrosive Flint River water leaching lead out of the old Flint water pipes. Soon thereafter, a public health and environmental crisis enveloped Flint. Many lawsuits have been filed against many defendants, and many civil and criminal investigations have been opened. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com