BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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


    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    Insurer Must Produce Documents After Failing To Show They Are Confidential

    Amid the Chaos, Trump Signs Executive Order Streamlining Environmental Permitting and Disbands Infrastructure Council

    Contractors Battle Bitter Winters at $11.8B Site C Hydro Project in Canada

    Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply

    Future Environmental Rulemaking Proceedings Listed in the Spring 2019 Unified Federal Agenda

    Packard Condominiums Settled with Kosene & Kosene Residential

    Connecticut Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    Have the Feds Taken Over Arbitration?

    Insurance Agent Sued for Lapse in Coverage after House Collapses

    Disaster Remediation Contracts: Understanding the Law to Avoid a Second Disaster

    Colorado’s Need for Condos May Spark Construction Defect Law Reform

    Supreme Court’s New York Harbor Case Isn’t a ‘Sopranos’ Episode

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

    Workers at Two NFL Stadiums Test Positive for COVID-19, But Construction Continues

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    TxDOT, Flatiron/Dragados Mostly Resolve Bridge Design Dispute

    Check The Boxes Regarding Contractual Conditions Precedent to Payment

    Hunton Partner Michael Levine Appointed to Law360’s 2024 Insurance Authority Property Editorial Advisory Board

    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

    Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention

    New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure

    Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens

    Communicate with the Field to Nip Issues in the Bud

    Power of Workers Compensation Immunity on Construction Project

    Damage Control: Major Rebuilds After Major Weather Events

    Flying Solo: How it Helps My Construction Clients

    What is the True Value of Rooftop Solar Panels?

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    Insurer Incorrectly Relies Upon "Your Work" Exclusion to Deny Coverage

    Failing to Release A Mechanics Lien Can Destroy Your Construction Business

    Corvette museum likely to keep part of sinkhole

    Implied Warranties for Infrastructure in Florida Construction Defect Claims

    Pa. Contractor Pleads No Contest to Prevailing-Wage Charges, Pays Workers $20.7M

    Where Parched California Is Finding New Water Sources

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/13/22

    Construction Litigation—Battles on Many Fronts

    Alabama “occurrence” and subcontractor work exception to the “your completed work” exclusion

    ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of National Debt Limit Suspension

    Did Deutsche Make a Deal with the Wrong Homeowner?

    When Cyber Crooks Steal Payments, Think Insurance Makes Up The Loss? Think Again.

    The Ups and Downs of Elevator Maintenance Contractor's Policy Limits

    Reminder: Your Accounting and Other Records Matter

    Wildfires Threaten to Make Home Insurance Unaffordable

    Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions

    Pollution Exclusion Does Not Apply To Concrete Settling Dust

    A License to Sue: Appellate Court Upholds Condition of Statute that a Contracting Party Must Hold a Valid Contractor’s License to Pursue Action for Recovery of Payment for Contracting Services

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Falls to Lowest Since Early 1995

    Athletic Trainers Help Workers Get Back to the Jobsite and Stay Healthy After Injury

    Florida Self-Insured Retention Satisfaction and Made Whole Doctrine
    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

    Florida Appellate Courts Holds Underwriting Manuals are Discoverable in Breach of Contract Case

    February 14, 2022 —
    Recently, Florida’s First District Court of Appeals handed down a victory for policyholders when it affirmed a Circuit Court’s order compelling an insurer to produce its underwriting manual in a breach of contract action. In People’s Trust Insurance Co. v. Foster, No. 1D21-845 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 26, 2022), the policyholder, Mr. Foster, filed a breach of contract claim against his insurer, People’s Trust, after People’s Trust failed to pay his insurance claim for damage caused to Mr. Foster’s home due to a leaking water pipe. People’s Trust denied Foster’s claim because “Foster’s pipe damage predated the policy’s inception.” During discovery Foster requested People’s Trusts’ underwriting manual(s) in effect at the time his policy was issued or renewed. People’s Trust objected to the request. In response, Foster filed a motion to compel production of the underwriting manual(s). After a hearing, the Circuit Court granted Foster’s motion and People’s Trust sought a writ of Certiorari from the First District Court of Appeal to quash the order compelling production. Reprinted courtesy of Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Some Coastal Cities Are Sinking Even Faster Than Seas Are Rising

    June 20, 2022 —
    Rising seas have long been a threat to coastal cities. New research suggests that cities—particularly in Asia—are sinking as well, compounding the risks of frequent and severe flooding. In Karachi, land is sinking five times as fast as the sea level is rising, according to the study published this month in Geophysical Research Letters. Manila and Chittagong, Bangladesh’s second-largest city, are sinking at 10 times the rate of the rising waters. In China’s Tianjin, a coastal city about 150 kilometers southeast of Beijing, the ground is giving way at 20 times that speed. In those four cities alone, the phenomenon could affect roughly 59 million residents. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ditas B Lopez, Bloomberg

    Updated Covid-19 Standards In The Workplace

    August 23, 2021 —
    With California reopening, many Californians will be heading back to the workplace soon and are wondering if employers may require their employees to get vaccinated. According to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), an employer may require employees to receive an FDA-approved vaccination against COVID-19 infection so long as the employer (a) does not discriminate against nor harass employees on the basis of a protected characteristic, (b) provides reasonable accommodations related to disability or sincerely-held religious beliefs, and (c) does not retaliate against anyone for engaging in protected activity.[1] On June 15, 2021, California lifted its mask mandate across the state. The California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) updated its guidance for the use of face coverings stating that masks are no longer required for fully vaccinated individuals.[2] However, masks are still required on public transit, indoors in k-12 schools, childcare, other youth settings, healthcare settings, long-term care facilities, correctional and detention facilities, and homeless shelters.[3] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052: The “Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013.”

    January 25, 2013 —

    Last fall the Denver Regional Council of Governments approached the Colorado Association of Home Builders to inquire as to why there are no builders developing or constructing for-sale, multi-family projects along the newly constructed light rail lines. By surveying its membership, the CAHB quickly learned that the biggest impediment to such construction is Colorado’s litigation environment, i.e., “if you build it, they will sue.” This started a dialogue within the industry in order to determine what changes developers and general contractors would like to see made in order to consider again building for-sale, multi-family construction. The result of this dialogue is Senate Bill 13-052, introduced on January 16, 2013, and known as the Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013, sponsored by Senators Scheffel and Cadman and Representative DelGrosso. You can find the current iteration of SB 13-052 here

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain
    Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Breath of Fresh Air

    February 14, 2023 —
    For the first time since 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency updated and strengthened air quality standards. Construction sites are responsible for 14.5% of particulate matter in the air and 8% of total emissions in the United States. With that in mind, Construction Executive has spoken with Serene Al-Momen, Ph.D. and chief executive officer of Attune, in an exclusive interview. Al-Momen is an expert in air quality and offers her opinion on standards, consequences and the impact on the construction industry—which she has specific experience with due to Attune’s relationship with Clark Construction, a member of Associated Builders and Contractors. CONSTRUCTION EXECUTIVE: What is important about air quality standards in general? Serene Al-Momen: Air quality standards regulate the amount of pollution that's allowed to be emitted into the atmosphere. Reprinted courtesy of Rachel E. Pelovitz, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors

    October 21, 2024 —
    The recent Town of Mancos v. Aqua Engineering case is an insightful example of how well written contracts and timely legal action can make all the difference in resolving disputes between municipalities, general contractors, and subcontractors. The ruling favored Aqua Engineering; a subcontractor that played a role in a wastewater treatment facility project gone wrong. The court’s decision highlighted key legal principles, including the economic loss rule and the importance of well-structured contracts in construction disputes. Whether you are a subcontractor looking to avoid undue liability or a general contractor seeking to ensure subcontractors shoulder their fair portion of responsibility, this case offers valuable lessons for all parties involved in construction projects. The Background: A Wastewater Project with Issues In 2008, the Town of Mancos, Colorado, hired Souder, Miller & Associates (“SMA”) to design a new wastewater treatment facility. SMA subcontracted Aqua Engineering to help implement a specific wastewater treatment system known as the Multi-Stage Activated Biological Process (“MSABP”). However, after construction, the facility never worked as expected. For years, the Town faced ongoing issues, and despite Aqua’s involvement in attempts to fix the problems, the facility remained dysfunctional. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

    Business Risk Exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 Found Ambiguous

    April 22, 2019 —
    Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the Tenth Circuit found that exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 were ambiguous as applied to the facts of the case. MTI, Inc. v. Emplrs. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2543 (10th Cir. Jan. 25, 2019). Western Farmers Electrical Cooperative (WFEC) owned cooling towers which were serviced by MTI, Inc. Wausau provided a CGL policy to MTI. In 2011, MTI found that anchor bolts in Cooling Tower 1 were corroded. WFEC hired MTI to make repairs by installing new anchor castings with anchor bolts and anchor adhesive. On May 23, 2011, MTI employees removed all of the corroded anchor bolts in Tower 1. Because the adhesive applicator had not yet arrived, MTI did not immediately install new anchor bolts. On the night of May 24, strong winds struck the tower, causing it to lean and several structural components broke. Due to the extent of the structural damage, removal and replacement of the tower was determined to be the only viable option. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    April 28, 2014 —
    In conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”). In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of