BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer 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 Contract Clauses Which Go Bump in the Night – Part 1

    Stair Collapse Points to Need for Structural Inspections

    OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy: What Employers on Construction Sites Need to Know

    Subcontractor Allowed to Sue Designer for Negligence: California Courts Chip Away at the Economic Loss Doctrine (Independent Duty Rule)

    Pennsylvania Modernizes State Building Code

    WSHB Expands to Philadelphia

    Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018

    Lakewood First City in Colorado to Pass Ordinance Limiting State Construction Defect Law

    Sixth Circuit Rejects Claim for Reverse Bad Faith

    Amazon Can be Held Strictly Liable as a Product Seller in New Jersey

    Business and Professions Code Section 7031, Demurrers, and Just How Much You Can Dance

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

    Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations

    Immigrants' Legal Status Eyed Over Roles in New York Fake Injury Lawsuits

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    Gru Was Wrong About the Money: Court Concludes that Lender Owes Contractor “Contractually, Factually and Practically”

    Policy Lanuage Expressly Prohibits Replacement of Undamaged Material to Match Damaged Material

    Surety’s Several Liability Under Bonds

    Tom Newmeyer Elected Director At Large to the 2017 Orange County Bar Association Board of Directors

    Flawed Welding Faulted in Mexico City Subway Collapse

    NTSB Sheds Light on Fatal Baltimore Work Zone Crash

    Mortgage Interest Rates Increase on Newly Built Homes

    Blockbuster Breakwater: Alternative Construction Method Put to the Test in Tampa Bay

    How To Fix Oroville Dam

    Contractual Fee-Shifting in Litigation: Who Pays the Price?

    Colorado Legislature Considering Making it Easier to Prevail on CCPA Claims

    A Year After Fatal Genoa Viaduct Collapse, Replacement Takes Shape

    Courts Generally Favor the Enforcement of Arbitration Provisions

    Mitigating the Consequences of Labor Unrest on Construction Projects

    When it Comes to COVID Emergency Regulations, Have a Plan

    Storm Eunice Damage in U.K. Could Top £300 Million

    A Tuesday With Lisa Colon

    Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

    Partner Lisa M. Rolle and Associate Vito John Marzano Obtain Dismissal of Third-Party Indemnification Claims

    Exclusion for Construction of Condominiums Includes Faulty Construction of Retaining Wall

    New Jersey Supreme Court Issue Important Decision for Homeowners and Contractors

    Reminder: Your MLA Notice Must Have Your License Number

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    In Kansas City, a First-Ever Stadium Designed for Women’s Sports Takes the Field

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Where Underlying Claim is Strictly Breach of Contract

    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race

    Law Firm Fails to Survive Insurer's and Agent's Motions to Dismiss

    Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

    Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations

    Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes Six Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction

    Apartment Construction Increasing in Colorado while Condo Construction Remains Slow

    Congratulations to Jonathan Kaplan on his Promotion to Partner!

    Colorado’s Abbreviated Legislative Session Offers Builders a Reprieve
    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. Leveraging 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

    S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

    July 01, 2014 —
    June 30 (Bloomberg) --The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index was little changed, capping the longest string of quarterly gains since 1998, as a jump in pending home sales offset weaker-than-forecast manufacturing data. D.R. Horton Inc. rallied 3.2 percent, leading gains among homebuilders. Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO) rose 2.6 percent after Piper Jaffray Cos. recommended buying the stock. MannKind Corp. jumped 9.6 percent as the maker of diabetes drugs rebounded from its worst week in two months. Allergan Inc. declined 2.7 percent following regulatory decisions on its drugs. The S&P 500 fell less than 0.1 percent to 1,960.23 at 4 p.m. in New York. The equity benchmark gauge rose 4.7 percent for the quarter, a sixth consecutive advance. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 25.24 points, or 0.2 percent, to 16,826.60 today, trimming its quarterly advance to 2.2 percent. The Nasdaq Composite Index rose 0.2 percent, giving it a 5 percent increase for the three months. Ms. Wang may be contacted at lwang8@bloomberg.net; Mr. Barach may be contacted at jbarach1@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lu Wang and Jacob Barach, Bloomberg

    Lakewood First City in Colorado to Pass Ordinance Limiting State Construction Defect Law

    October 15, 2014 —
    The Denver Post reported that the Lakewood City Council passed an ordinance “designed to soften the effects of Colorado's controversial construction-defects law.” Specifically, the ordinance “gives developers and builders a ‘right to repair’ defects before facing litigation and would require condominium association boards to get consent from a majority of homeowners — rather than just the majority of the board — before filing suit.” Not all residents are in favor of the ordinance. "It protects builders and big business at the expense of homeowners," Chad Otto, former president of the Grant Ranch homeowners association, told the crowd, as quoted by the Denver Post. "Does Lakewood want to be known as the mecca of poorly built condos?" Proponents of the measure, including Lakewood Mayor Bob Murphy, claim that “Colorado's defects law…has forced up insurance premiums on new condo projects to the point where they are no longer feasible to build.” Furthermore, according to the Denver Post, “Condos represented only 4.6 percent of total new home starts in metro Denver in the second quarter of 2014, versus more than 26 percent in 2008, according to Metrostudy.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    ALERT: COVID-19 / Coronavirus-Related Ransomware and Phishing Attacks

    April 13, 2020 —
    As with other events that attract societal attention – whether it be an international sporting event like the Olympics or a natural disaster like the Australian bush fires - criminals often utilize the events to exploit consumers’ fears and, in turn, compromise the cybersecurity of businesses nationwide. With the advent of the Coronavirus, criminals have begun to take advantage of what consumers expect to receive via email to conduct phishing attacks. Criminals are also expected to take advantage of millions of vulnerable remote connections from employee home networks to their corporate networks. According to Proofpoint Inc., a cybersecurity firm, the use of sophisticated Coronavirus-related “phishing” strategies has been on the rise since January, with new malicious email campaigns surfacing each day. These emails, which appear to come from legitimate organizations, contain content such as advice on combatting the Coronavirus, phony invoices for purchases of face masks and medical supplies, advertisements for products that allegedly treat the illness, and phony alerts from the World Health Organization (WHO) or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). When the email recipients open these messages, they unknowingly release malware, which allows the attacker to gain access to their personal information and to compromise the security of their employers’ networks. The recent emergence of Coronavirus-related “phishing” schemes demonstrates that businesses must remain vigilant. Employees and their employers are particularly vulnerable now, in light of the novel nature of the Coronavirus, the paucity of information concerning the illness, and the rapid and significant manner in which it is spreading. Individuals are thirsty for information and advice, and are eager to take any action necessary to protect themselves and their families. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher E. Ballod, Lewis Brisbois and Sean B. Hoar, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Ballod may be contacted at Christopher.Ballod@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Hoar may be contacted at Sean.Hoar@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Eleventh Circuit Holds that EPA Superfund Remedial Actions are Usually Entitled to the FTCA “Discretionary Function” Exemption

    February 18, 2019 —
    An unusual Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, known also as Superfund) remedial action has resulted in a broad ruling that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) remedial actions and their implementation by EPA contractors may be entitled to broad protection from liability insofar as the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is involved. The case is Gadsden Industrial Park LLC v. United States of America, CMC Inc., and Harsco Corporation, an unpublished opinion released by the court on November 30, 2018. After the Gulf States Steel Corporation, the owner and operator of a former steel manufacturing facility located in Gadsden, AL, declared bankruptcy, in 2002, Gadsden Industrial Park LLC (Gadsden) purchased 434 acres of the 761 acre site, as well as assets located in what is described as the “Excluded Real Property”—recyclable materials generated in the steel making process known as “kish” and “slag,” and a track of a railroad line located in this area. However, in the 2007 or 2008, the Eleventh Circuit observes, EPA began a CERCLA remedial cleanup action on the Excluded Real Property and barred Gadsden from entering the Excluded Real Property to make use of its new assets. 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 Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    September 30, 2011 —

    The Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.

    In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”

    Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.

    The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”

    The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”

    The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    May 20, 2011 —

    The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) reports that Representatives Gary Miller (CA), Brad Miller (NC) and twenty-nine cosponsors have put forth a bill with bipartisan support to “address the severe credit crunch for acquisition, development, and construction (AD&C) financing.” They report in addition to more than 1.4 million construction workers who have been “idled since 2006,” the housing slump has cost 3 million jobs and $145 million in wages.

    NAHB reports that they worked closely with lawmakers on the bill. The association had members meet with legislators both in D.C. and in their home districts. They state that HR 1755 would help homebuilders “find the credit they need to move forward with new or existing projects.”

    The bill would allow lenders to use the value upon completion when assessing loan collateral and ban the use of foreclosed or distressed sale properties in assessing values of projects. The would bill would also lessen restrictions by banking regulators, which the lead sponsors said “have hindered federal and state chartered banks and thrifts’ ability to make and maintain loans to qualified small home builders that have viable projects.”

    The NAHB is urging members of Congress to cosponsor the bill and is urging the Senate to introduce a companion bill.

    Read the full story…

    Read HR 1755

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

    Court Rules in Favor of Treasure Island Developers in Environmental Case

    July 09, 2014 —
    A California court ruled that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that had been approved by the city of San Francisco was adequate for the proposed 8,000-home development on Treasure Island, according to the San Francisco Business Times. The suit had been brought by Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island back in 2011. However, in December of 2012, “a lower court affirmed the EIR and the citizens’ group appealed that decision.” The project was proposed by partners Lennar Corp. and Wilson Meany. The development would “add thousands of new housing units along with retail, hotel and office space in addition to renovating historic buildings and creating 300 acres of open space.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus

    April 20, 2020 —
    Earlier this week, a rumor made the rounds that a forthcoming Presidential Executive Order would impose a nationwide mandate that all employees work remotely. While the rumor proved baseless, it raised questions about manufacturers’ abilities to comply with environmental permit obligations in the event of a COVID-19 precipitated operational shutdown due to federal or state mandates or workforce depletion resulting from widespread illness. Previous emergencies offer some insights on what to expect as companies and their counsel assess environmental business risk. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, several bills were introduced in Congress that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to waive or modify requirements, issue emergency permits, or expedite permits as needed to respond to disaster and recovery needs. In the end, no new legislation was enacted, because existing emergency powers under environmental statutes proved sufficient to allow for waiver of regulatory requirements or exercise of enforcement discretion. Key provisions include the following:
    • The Clean Water Act’s (CWA) affirmative defense for “upset” conditions. This provision excuses non-compliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations due to factors outside the permittee’s control. Criteria for establishing the defense include: 1) the upset occurred and the permittee can identify the cause, 2) the permitted facility was at the time being properly operated, 3) the permittee submitted notice of the upset (24 hour notice), and 4) the permittee complied with any remedial measures required under 40 C.F.R. §122.41(d).
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith attorneys Karen Bennett, Jane Luxton, William Walsh and Amanda Tharpe Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. William may be contacted at William.Walsh@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Amanda may be contacted at Amanda.Tharpe@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of