BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    Colorado Chamber of Commerce CEO Calls for Change to Condo Defect Law

    If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors

    Cultivating a Company Culture Committed to Safety, Mentorship and Education

    More Thoughts on “Green” (the Practice, not the Color) Building

    Taking the Stairs to Human Wellness and Greener Buildings

    Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania

    Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

    The Job is Substantially Complete, the Subcontract was Never Signed, the Subcontractor Wants to be Paid—Now What?

    Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

    New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims

    Breach of an Oral Contract and Unjust Enrichment and Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

    Bad Faith Claim For Independent Contractor's Reduced Loss Assessment Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Do Municipal Gas Bans Slow the Clean Hydrogen Transition in Real Estate?

    Toll Brothers Report End of Year Results

    What Happens When a Secured Creditor Files a Late Claim in an Equity Receivership?

    Seattle Expands Bridge Bioswale Projects

    Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims

    Bad Welds Doom Art Installation at Central Park

    District Court's Ruling Affirmed in TCD v American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

    Five Reasons to Hire Older Workers—and How to Keep Them

    Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill

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

    Scary Movie: Theatre Developer Axed By Court of Appeal In Prevailing Wage Determination Challenge

    A Glimpse Into Post-Judgment Collections and Perhaps the Near Future?

    Documentation Important for Defending Construction Defect Claims

    Georgia Court Rules that Separate Settlements Are Not the End of the Matter

    ‘Revamp the Camps’ Cabins Displayed at the CA State Fair

    New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation

    As Trump Visits Border, Texas Landowners Prepare to Fight the Wall

    Fire Damages Unfinished Hospital Tower at NYU Langone Medical Center

    Delaware Settlements with Minors and the Uniform Transfer to Minor Act

    City of Birmingham Countersues Contractor for Incomplete Work

    Claimants’ Demand for Superfluous Wording In Release Does Not Excuse Insurer’s Failure to Accept Policy Limit Offer Within Time Specified

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Issues to Watch Out for When Managing Remote Workers

    Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

    No Coverage for Alleged Misrepresentation Claim

    Pine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime Mortgages

    WSHB Expands to Philadelphia

    Ordinary Use of Term In Insurance Policy Prevailed

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Lewis Brisbois Successfully Concludes Privacy Dispute for Comedian Kathy Griffin Following Calif. Supreme Court Denial of Review

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    California Mediation Confidentiality May Apply to Third Party “Participants” Retained to Provide Analysis

    Gardeners in the City of the Future: An Interview with Eric Baczuk

    How Many Homes have Energy-Efficient Appliances?

    Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion

    JD Supra’s 2017 Reader’s Choice Awards

    Single-Family Home Gain Brightens U.S. Housing Outlook: Economy

    Unwrapped Pipes Lead to Flooding and Construction Defect Lawsuit
    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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    September 12, 2022 —
    In a case brought before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington won a motion for summary judgment in favor of their client, the owner of a residential property (“Property Owner”) in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The Property Owner had retained a Construction Company (“Construction Company” or “Contractor”) to perform renovations to the residence, which included building a new staircase. The Plaintiff alleged that while walking down a set of temporary wooden steps on the property, the third step broke, which caused him to fall and resulted in the alleged injuries. The Plaintiff brought suit against the Property Owner and Construction Company for personal injuries as a result of the alleged fall. In the contract between the Property Owner and the Construction Company, it is stated that “[the Contractor] shall be solely responsible for all construction methods and materials and for coordinating all portions of the Work….The Contractor warrants to [the Property Owner] that all materials and equipment incorporated are new and that all work shall be of good quality and free of defects or faults.” The contract continues to state that the Construction Company shall indemnify and hold harmless the Property Owner against all claims, which includes damages, losses, expenses, legal fees and other costs that might arise from the Construction Company’s performance of the work under the contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com

    The DOL Claims Most Independent Contractors Are Employees

    August 04, 2015 —
    On July 15, 2015, the Department of Labor issued an Administrator’s Interpretation asserting that most independent contractors are actually employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The DOL claims that the FLSA’s broad definition of employment and “suffer to work” standard under the FLSA requires that most workers be treated as employees. The certainly appears to be the DOL’s warning shot over the bow and companies using independent contractors should take heed. The most startling aspect of the Administrative Interpretation is the application of the economic realities test in concluding that workers who are economically dependent on the company, regardless of skill level, are employees under the FLSA’s broad definition of employee. 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

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces New Partners

    January 06, 2020 —
    Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that Walnut Creek attorney, Michael Krueger, and Newport Beach attorney, Jason Morris, have been elected to partnership. Their promotion is effective immediately. "We are proud to have Jason and Mike join the firm's partnership," said Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff. "They both embody the firm's core cultural pillars – like, trust, respect and loyalty – and they've both demonstrated a commitment to outstanding client service and excellent legal work. They will continue to propel the firm's success for decades to come." Michael Krueger is based in the firm's Walnut Creek office, representing companies at every stage of the business life cycle to create business solutions that minimize risk and accomplish strategic objectives. Recognized as a 2019 California Trailblazer by The Recorder, Krueger is a trusted advisor for complex business negotiations, real estate ventures including Opportunity Zone projects, mergers and acquisitions, bank finance and private equity transactions. A former in-house counsel and business owner, he serves as general counsel for clients focused on expanding their operations, products, and services. Krueger earned his B.A from Marian University and his J.D. from Valparaiso School of Law. Jason Morris is based in the firm's Newport Beach office, representing companies in all aspects of labor & employment law and business litigation. Whether offering practical advice on a wide range of day-to-day employment law issues, or navigating the complexity of all aspects of civil litigation defense, his focus is helping clients avoid potential legal landmines and keep their business assets protected. Morris brings significant leadership and trial experience to his practice, serving for nearly eight years on active duty in the United States Marine Corps as a Judge Advocate both in the Pentagon advising senior military and civilian leaders, and as a trial attorney successfully representing more than 300 cases, including over 10 trials to verdict. Morris earned his B.A. from Marian University, cum laude, and his J.D. from Indiana University Maurer School of Law. About Newmeyer Dillion For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong

    January 20, 2020 —
    In April 2018, the Department of Justice announced a $5M settlement reached in its lawsuit against former professional cyclist, Lance Armstrong. While the fallout from Armstrong’s latently-admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) was well-publicized, including lost sponsorship deals, stripped Tour de France titles, and damage to his reputation, few were aware of Armstrong’s exposure to liability and criminal culpability for false claims against the government. The DOJ’s announcement reminded Armstrong and the rest of us of the golden rule of dealing with the government: honesty is the best policy. The corollary to that rule is that dishonesty is costly. Armstrong’s liability stemmed from false statements (denying the use of PEDs) he made, directly and through team members and other representatives, to U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) representatives and to the public. USPS was the primary sponsor of the grand tour cycling team led by Armstrong. The government alleged in the lawsuit that Armstrong’s false statements were made to induce USPS to renew and increase its sponsorship fees, in violation of the False Claims Act. The Statute Enacted in 1863, the False Claims Act (“FCA”) was originally aimed at stopping and deterring frauds perpetrated by contractors against the government during the Civil War. Congress amended the FCA in the years since its enactment, but its primary focus and target have remained those who present or directly induce the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The current FCA imposes penalties on anyone who knowingly presents “a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal Government. A “claim” now includes direct requests to the Government for payment, as well as reimbursement requests made to the recipients of federal funds under federal benefits programs (such as Medicare). Thirty-one states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have also enacted laws imposing penalties for false claims against state agencies and their subdivisions, with most of these laws modelled after the federal FCA. Reprinted courtesy of Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP and Alex Gorelik, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Fell in February to Five-Month Low

    March 26, 2014 —
    Purchases of new homes in the U.S. fell in February to the lowest level in five months, a sign the industry may take time to pick up after inclement weather damped demand earlier in the year. Sales declined 3.3 percent to a 440,000 annualized pace, following a 455,000 rate in the prior month that was the strongest in a year, figures from the Commerce Department showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 77 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for 445,000. Unusually frigid temperatures added to restraints including rising mortgage rates, higher property values, and a lack of supply that kept prospective buyers away from the market for new and existing properties. Bigger gains in employment and consumer sentiment would help spur the recovery in homebuilding, sustaining its contribution to economic growth and boosting earnings at companies such as Lennar Corp. and KB Home. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shobhana Chandra, Bloomberg
    Ms. Chandra may be contacted at schandra1@bloomberg.net

    Massachusetts Clarifies When the Statute of Repose is Triggered For a Multi-Phase or Multi-Building Project

    December 07, 2020 —
    Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC (“Lennar”) built a twenty-eight-building, 150-unit condominium project containing twenty-four discrete phases over a seven-year span. The condominium association subsequently brought an action against Lennar and others alleging design and construction defects to four main components of the common elements: “decks and columns,” “roofing/flashing,” “exterior walls/flashing/building envelope,” and “irrigation system.” In response, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s claims with respect to six of the twenty- eight buildings were barred by Massachusetts’s six-year statute of repose, G. L. c. 206 § 2B. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts previously held that all twenty-eight of the condominium’s buildings should be treated as a single improvement for purposes of application of the statute of repose. Subsequently, the court certified the following question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Where the factual record supports the conclusion that a builder or developer was engaged in the continuous construction of a single condominium development comprising multiple buildings or phases, when does the six-year period for an action of tort relating to the construction of the condominium’s common or limited common elements start running? Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The ALI Restatement – What Lies Ahead?

    July 30, 2018 —
    The American Law Institute voted on May 22, 2018 to approve the final draft of its “Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance.” This was the culmination of an eight-year project that evolved through 29 drafts resulting in a nearly 500-page final product. At least nine courts cited to the Restatement while it was still in draft form. On June 28, 2018, White and Williams LLP had the privilege of hosting a seminar about the Restatement, chaired by the Reporter for the Restatement, University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Tom Baker, and Randy Maniloff of White and Williams, author of “General Liability Insurance Coverage, Key Issues In Every State.” The seminar was geared toward assisting members of the liability insurance community in navigating the key provisions of the Restatement, including how they compare and contrast with existing case law and the role the Restatement may play in courts’ decision-making processes going forward. Reprinted courtesy of Adam M. Berardi , White and Williams, LLP and Sara C. Tilitz, White and Williams, LLP Mr. Berardi  may be contacted at berardia@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Tilitz may be contacted at tilitzs@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Recent Federal Court Decision Favors Class Action Defendants

    October 26, 2020 —
    The commercial construction contracting and subcontracting industry in general is unique under the law for industry professionals, as they’re typically limited to wage and hour litigation under provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The majority of FLSA cases seek class action status or collective classification, while other FLSA litigation is initiated by individuals seeking damages. For the former, past and current employees can opt into class action litigation and seek collective damages against a construction company. The looming financial burden of class action or collective litigation against construction companies consume time, money and resources to the extent it’s often advisable for Defendants to negotiate an unfair settlement. Yet, thanks to a recent federal court decision on March 27, 2020, the legal maneuvering behind unreasonable Plaintiff demands may soon be counter-balanced by the class action Defendants’ right to due process review. A recent legal opinion in a recent FLSA case has potentially wide-ranging implications for Defendant employers mired in future class action litigation. Moreover, as the FLSA applies to all employers, this decision potentially applies to all ownership groups representing the commercial construction industry, extending to partners, contractors and subcontractors. Reprinted courtesy of Amber Karns & Dan Pipitone, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Pipitone may be contacted at dpipitone@munsch.com Ms. Karns may be contacted at akarns@munsch.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of