BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing 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


    Delaware Strengthens Jurisdictional Defenses for Foreign Corporations Registered to Do Business in Delaware

    Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability

    Chambers USA 2022 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Relief Bill's Highway Funds Could Help Construction Projects

    University of California Earthquake Report Provides List of Old Concrete Buildings in LA

    More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

    Court Calls Lease-Leaseback Project What it is: A Design-Bid-Build Project

    Angelo Mozilo Speaks: No Regrets at Countrywide

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    Homebuilders Offer Hope for U.K. Economy

    Did the Court of Appeals Just Raise the Bar for California Contractors to Self-Report Construction-Related Judgments?

    Three Recent Cases Strike Down Liquidated Damages Clauses In Settlement Agreements…A Trend Or An Aberration?

    Asbestos Confirmed After New York City Steam Pipe Blast

    Potential Coverage Issues Implicated by the Champlain Towers Collapse

    Cincinnati Team Secures Summary Judgment for Paving Company in Trip-and-Fall Case

    Court of Appeals Invalidates Lien under Dormancy Clause

    Difficulty in Defending Rental Supplier’s Claim Under Credit Application

    Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton

    New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

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

    Insured's Claim for Cyber Coverage Rejected

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce?”

    Palo Alto Considers Fines for Stalled Construction Projects

    Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier

    Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    California Supreme Court Holds Insured Entitled to Coverage Under CGL Policy for Negligent Hiring

    Vinny Testaverde Alleges $5 Million Mansion Riddled with Defects

    FHFA’s Watt Says Debt Cuts Possible for Underwater Homeowners

    Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

    Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding

    Toll Brothers Named #1 Home Builder on Fortune Magazine's 2023 World's Most Admired Companies® List

    Miller Wagers Gundlach’s Bearish Housing Position Loses

    Does a Landlord’s Violation of the Arizona Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Constitute Negligence Per Se?

    JAMS Announces Updated Construction Rules

    World's Longest Suspension Bridge Takes Shape in Turkey

    Walkability Increases Real Estate Values

    BIM Meets Reality on the Construction Site

    Documentation Important for Defending Construction Defect Claims

    Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

    Claim Preclusion: The Doctrine Everyone Thinks They Know But No One Really Knows What it Means in Practice

    Even Toilets Aren’t Safe as Hackers Target Home Devices

    The Secret to an OSHA Inspection

    Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    Illinois Supreme Court Announces Time Standards for Closing Out Cases

    Are Housing Prices Poised to Fall in Denver?

    “A No-Lose Proposition?”
    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

    Time To “Construct” New Social Media Policies

    March 28, 2022 —
    1. The Social Media Dilemma Social media has significantly impacted all facets of society, especially the way people communicate. Its impact and application to the construction industry is no different. TikTok, the video-sharing platform, is one of the world’s most popular platforms today, with over one billion active users monthly. From just one video, users can gain thousands—if not millions—of followers overnight. Social media has been used to present a narrative that the workplace can be fun, or that employees are enjoying working together. Social media can also, however, serve as a tool to document a perfect storm of events, such as a building collapse or crane malfunction, which can then be misconstrued and smeared throughout the internet, all with your company’s logo in the background. So, what happens when an incident on your jobsite is branded across social media as a #constructionfail, and the project owner ultimately initiates legal action? Can this video be used against your company? Can employers limit or otherwise restrict employees’ social media activity to avoid potential liability? How does the existence of social media posts affect dispute resolution procedures? Reprinted courtesy of Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs), Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) and Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Oregon Condo Owners Make Construction Defect Claim

    January 13, 2014 —
    Residents of two condominiums in Florence, Oregon have filed suits alleging that construction defects have led to water intrusion and damage. The two condominium projects were built by separate developers. Each association has brought its own lawsuit, according to an article in the Register-Guard. The Bridgeport Landing condominium owners have sued CJ Cable LLC for $2.5 million. Cindy Cable said of lawsuit, “I’ve done everything I could do to get this resolved, and I still get sued.” She said that “the only way to get it corrected is with a lawsuit.” Meanwhile, residents of the Stillwater Condominiums have sued Thomas Hornback Construction for $2.1 million. Hornback is reported to have denied the allegations made by the Stillwater owners, but says that any problems would be due to subcontractors or failure of the owners to maintain the buildings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action

    March 26, 2014 —
    In Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (No. B239761, filed March 17, 2014), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a trial court must permit a defendant, in a products liability action, to present evidence of apportionment of fault among settling and non-settling entities. The case involved an automobile collision in which the plaintiff was struck from behind, causing the driver’s seat to recline and propel plaintiff into the back seat where she struck her head. Plaintiff was left quadriplegic as a result. Plaintiff brought suit against the driver who caused the accident, the Nissan entities who manufactured the car plaintiff was driving, Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Johnson”), Ikeda Engineering Corporation (“Ikeda”), Vintec Co. (“Vintec”), and Autoliv ASP, Inc., who designed and manufactured the driver’s seat of the vehicle plaintiff was driving, and against Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. who manufactured the recliner mechanism of plaintiff’s vehicle’s front seat. Ikeda participated in the design of the driver’s seat and Vintec manufactured the driver’s seat. Johnson manufactured the seat belt for the driver’s seat of plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with Nissan’s design. Prior to trial, plaintiff settled with the defendant driver, the Nissan defendants, the Autoliv defendants, and Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. Plaintiff elected to proceed to trial solely on a cause of action for strict products liability against Ikeda and Vintec. Pursuant to a stipulation, Johnson agreed it would be legally responsible for damages awarded to plaintiff at trial based upon the actions of Vintec or Ikeda. At trial, the court precluded Vintec and Ikeda from offering evidence that: (1) plaintiff would not have been injured if her vehicle’s seat belt was designed in a different manner by Nissan; (2) Nissan chose the manufacturer of the recliner mechanism and required defendants to use that manufacturer and that part in the seat; and (3) The other defendants had already reached settlements with plaintiff. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The “Climate 21 Project” Prepared for the New Administration

    December 21, 2020 —
    This is a brief review of the recently released “Climate 21 Project” policy memo. It is the work of many former members of the Obama Administration who are deeply concerned about climate change and what steps the new administration can take in the first 100 days to confront a problem. Offering “actionable advice” rather than a policy agenda, the group recognizes that Congress must do its part by providing new statutory authorities within the early days of the new administration, and the President must be prepared to aggressively exercise the powers of his office. As the members of the Group see it, there are four interlocking crises facing the President: (a) the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) the economic devastation visited upon many people by the pandemic; (c) racial injustice; and (d) accelerating threats posed by climate change. Accordingly: 1. The Executive Office of the President must take stronger steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through domestic investment, rulemakings, policy changes, and international diplomacy. A new Special Assistant for Climate Change must be created to take charge of these climate change initiatives. There should also be established in the Executive Office of the President a National Climate Change Council. All agencies must be advised of the urgency of this problem. The paper seems to envision a substantial growth in the White Hose staff. 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

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    June 30, 2011 —

    One June 27, the US Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal from Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent had appealed a summary judgment granted to Titan Construction Company.

    Titan Construction had built condominiums for the Williamsburg Condominium Association, which later filed a construction defect lawsuit against Titan and other defendants. Titan settled with the developer, Kennydale, assigning its rights against Mid-Continent to Kennydale. Mid-Continent filed suit, claiming that “it had no obligation to indemnify or defend Titan, Kennydale, or various other defendants.” The district court found in favor of Mid-Continent, granting a summary judgment, concluding that Titan’s insurance covered “occurrences,” and none had taken place.

    On appeal, the court found that the negligent construction of the condominiums constituted an “occurrence” The case was remanded and the district court this time found in favor of Titan, “concluding that Mid-Continent failed to raise a triable issue as to the applicability of the remaining policy exclusions.

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now affirmed that decision and Titan’s summary judgment stands.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Michigan Lawmakers Pass $4.7B Infrastructure Spending Bill

    April 11, 2022 —
    Michigan lawmakers have passed legislation appropriating $4.7 billion for state infrastructure, including more than $1 billion for various water projects.About $750 million will go toward drinking water infrastructure such as projects to replace lead service lines or remove contaminants like PFA substances, potentially harmful chemicals used in industrial and consumer products that are have been found in water. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

    April 10, 2019 —
    For years, the Nevada Real Estate Division (“NRED”) and its sub-entity, the Nevada Real Estate Commission (“NREC”), have been tasked with administering the licensing procedures applicable to real estate professionals in Nevada, as well as enforcement of the regulations governing business practices, advertising, commissions, license maintenance, and a host of other dayto-day parameters within which the profession operates. Within the past five years, however, the NREC has tasked itself with the publicly stated goal of “protecting” Nevada real estate licensees and the commissions they earn from out-of-state real estate professionals seeking to do business in the Silver State. While efforts to preserve local real estate opportunities for local brokers might seem sound, an international brokerage firm is challenging the foundation of that structure. If they win, the outcome could have huge implications on the real estate industry in Nevada. Businesses, here’s a breakdown of the existing structure and what the challenge is all about. The Existing Regulatory Structure Through amending their own regulations, the NRED and NREC have created a regulatory structure that:
    • Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any seller (Nevada based or non-Nevada based) of any Nevada real estate;
    • Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any Nevada resident in the purchase of Nevada real estate; and
    • Allows non-Nevada licensed real estate brokers to represent non-Nevada purchasers of Nevada real estate only if the out-of-state broker formally affiliates (and therefore shares commissions with) a resident Nevada-licensed broker.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aaron D. Lovaas, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
    Mr. Lovaas may be contacted at aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com

    “Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

    June 13, 2018 —
    On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided the case of Potvin v. Speedway, Inc., a personal injury case subject to the laws of Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, environmental rules require the installation of “positive limiting barriers” at gasoline service stations to contain gasoline spills of up to 5 gallons. At a self-service station now owned by Speedway, Inc., the plaintiff, a passenger in a car being serviced, exited the car but tripped on these barriers and was injured. She sued Speedway in state court, and the case was removed to federal court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com