BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design 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


    Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions – Changes and Claims

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “This Is Sufficient for Your Purposes …”

    Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

    Another Colorado Construction Defect Reform Bill Dies

    Extreme Flooding Overwhelms New York Roadways, Killing 1 Person

    Managing Once-in-a-Generation Construction Problems – Part II

    Illinois Town Sues over Construction Defects at Police Station

    Disrupt a Broken Industry—The Industrial Construction Sandbox

    Hurricane Handbook: A Policyholder's Guide to Handling Claims during Hurricane Season

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (9/4/24) – DOJ Sues RealPage, Housing Sales Increase and U.S. Can’t Build Homes Fast Enough

    Florida Construction Defect Decision Part of Lengthy Evolution

    PSA: Latest Updates from AGC-VA on COVID Rules (UPDATED)

    The Administrative Procedure Act and the Evolution of Environmental Law

    How I Prevailed on a Remote Jury Trial

    Illinois Appellate Court Addresses Professional Services Exclusion in Homeowners Policy

    Substituting Materials and Failure to Comply with Contractual Requirements

    Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2023

    First Lumber, Now Drywall as Canada-U.S. Trade Tensions Escalate

    Alabama Court Upholds Late Notice Disclaimer

    Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged

    The Construction Lawyer as Problem Solver

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    HP Unveils Cheaper, 3-D Printing System to Spur Sales

    The Sounds of Silence: Pennsylvania’s Sutton Rule

    Navigating Casualty Challenges and Opportunities

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Claim

    Hunton Insurance Recovery Lawyers Ranked by Chambers as Top Insurance Practitioners

    Engineers Propose 'River' Alternative to Border Wall

    As Laura Wreaks Havoc Along The Gulf, Is Your Insurance Ready to Respond?

    Window Installer's Alleged Faulty Workmanship On Many Projects Constitutes Multiple Occurrences

    NY Estimating Consultant Settles $3.1M Government Project Fraud Case

    Homebuilders Opposed to Potential Change to Interest on Construction Defect Expenses

    It’s Not Just the Millennium Tower That’s Sinking in San Francisco

    Deadlines Count for Construction Defects in Florida

    Subcontractor Exception to Your Work Exclusion Paves the Way for Coverage

    Suffolk Pauses $1.5B Boston Tower Project for Safety Audit After Fire

    ASCE Statement on House Passage of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    United States Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements

    Virginia Chinese Drywall “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and number of “occurrences”

    Collapse Claim Fails Due To Defectively Designed Roof and Deck

    Florida Court Gives Parties Assigned a Subrogation Claim a Math Lesson

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/16/24) – Chevron Ruling’s Impact on Construction Industry, New Kind of Public Housing and Policy Recommendations from Sustainable Building Groups

    Corvette museum likely to keep part of sinkhole

    Auditor: Prematurely Awarded Contracts Increased Honolulu Rail Cost by $354M

    Civil RICO Case Against Johnny Doc Is Challenging

    Reasonableness of Liquidated Damages Determined at Time of Contract (or, You Can’t Look Back Again)

    Congratulations to Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey W. Saab and Associate Shanna B. Carter on Obtaining Another Defense Award at Arbitration!

    Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond
    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

    Pennsylvania Modernizes State Building Code

    October 30, 2018 —
    The Pennsylvania Independent Regulatory Review Commission has updated the state’s Uniform Construction Code to align with the 2015 International Code —a family of comprehensive and coordinated building codes used in all 50 states that are updated regularly and take into account the latest health and safety technology and building science advancements. Reprinted courtesy of Joanna Masterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    First Circuit Rejects Insurer’s “Insupportable” Duty-to-Cooperate Defense in Arson Coverage Suit

    October 24, 2023 —
    In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. BAS Holding Corp., the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected an insurer’s “insupportable” defense that the insured company had breached its duty to cooperate by refusing the insurer’s request for an examination under oath of the company’s president. The decision is a reminder that, while examinations under oath can be effective tools to allow the insurer to properly investigate a claim, an insured’s duty to cooperate is not boundless and does not demand attendance at examinations that are not reasonably requested. Background BAS Holding involves the destruction of a landmark building in Boston by an arsonist. The owner, BAS Holding Corporation, submitted an insurance claim to its property insurer to recover insurance proceeds for the damage to the building. The insurer investigated the claim to determine whether the damage to the building was covered and issued a reservation of rights letter suggesting that the policy may not provide coverage for the fire. As part of its investigation, the insurer requested an examination under oath as a condition to coverage under the policy, which led to BAS presenting the property’s operations coordinator for an interview. Shortly after examining the operations coordinator, the insurer sought another examination of BAS’s president and owner, as well as five other employees. In response, BAS questioned whether the additional examinations were “reasonably required” and said that it would consider the requests if the insurer could explain why they were necessary. Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Augmented and Mixed Reality in Construction

    July 28, 2016 —
    Augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) are in the headlines, thanks to the recent mobile gaming boom. How are these emerging technologies applicable to construction? In this blog post, I present six application areas to consider. In AR—like Google Glass or Pokémon GO on a mobile device—the visible natural world is overlaid with a layer of digital content. In MR technologies, like Microsoft’s HoloLens or Magic Leap, virtual objects are integrated into and responsive to the natural world. In my earlier post, I wrote about virtual reality (VR), where the real world is replaced by a computer-generated environment. All the virtual technologies are still in relatively early stages of development. However, they already demonstrate the potential to change how we design, build, commercialize, and use the built environment. I brainstormed six application areas for AR and MR in construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aarni@aepartners.fi

    Lewis Brisbois Ranks Among Top 25 Firms on NLJ’s 2021 Women in Law Scorecard

    July 25, 2021 —
    Lewis Brisbois has been ranked among the top 25 law firms included in the National Law Journal's (NLJ) 2021 Women in Law Scorecard (Women’s Scorecard), moving up from 27th place to 23rd place this year. In addition, of the top 25 firms in the Women’s Scorecard, Lewis Brisbois had the highest number of female minority partners. The Women’s Scorecard is produced as part of the annual NLJ 500 firm head count report, and only the largest 350 firms are eligible to be included on the scorecard. A firm’s score is determined by adding the percentage of female attorneys and percentage of female partners. Diversity staffing counts were based on a firm’s average full-time attorneys in 2020, excluding contract and temporary attorneys. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jana Lubert, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Lubert may be contacted at Jana.Lubert@lewisbrisbois.com

    The California Privacy Rights Act Passed – Now What?

    November 09, 2020 —
    The ballot initiative, Proposition 24, has been passed by voters in yesterday’s election. What does this proposition entail and how does it impact the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)? What’s Covered in Proposition 24 - The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) The CPRA, among other things, does the following:
    • Revises the existing CCPA to expand consumer rights with respect to personal information and sensitive personal information;
    • Creates a new agency responsible for enforcing the CPRA; and
    • Increases penalties for violations related to the personal information of children under the age of 16.
    As for additional consumer rights, the CPRA offers consumers the opportunity to request a correction of inaccurate personal information. In addition, a consumer may direct a company to “limit its use of the consumer's sensitive personal information” to a use that an average customer would expect. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    November 26, 2014 —
    The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and five other federal agencies recently approved a joint rule (the “Risk Retention Rule”) mandating that sponsors of certain types of securitizations retain a minimum level of credit risk exposure in those transactions and prohibiting such sponsors from transferring or hedging against that retained credit risk.[i]The final Risk Retention Rule will be effective one year after its publication in the Federal Register for securitizations of residential mortgages, and two years after publication for securitizations of all other asset types. The SEC vote was 3-2, with sharp dissents from Commissioners Gallagher and Piwowar concluding that the adopting agencies had missed a prime opportunity to rein in risky mortgage lending practices that had precipitated the 2008 financial crisis. Background Following the meltdown of the securitization markets in 2007 (particularly subprime residential mortgage-backed securities), and the resulting global financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that the U.S. federal banking, securities and housing agencies adopt and implement rules to require sponsors of most new securitizations to retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of any assets that the securitizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed security, transfers, sells or conveys to a third party. It was thought that requiring securitization sponsors to keep “skin in the game” would align the interests of the sponsors with the interests of investors and thereby incentivize the sponsors to ensure the quality of the assets underlying the securitization through appropriate due diligence and underwriting procedures when selecting assets for securitization. Although the Dodd-Frank Act explicitly exempted securitizations of certain types of mortgage loans called “qualified residential mortgages” (or “QRMs”) from this risk retention requirement, it invited the rulemaking agencies to define that key term, provided that their definition could be no broader than the definition of “qualified mortgage”adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act.[ii] In considering how to define QRM, the rulemaking agencies were directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to take into consideration “underwriting and product features that historical loan performance data indicate result in a lower risk of default.”[iii] Reprinted courtesy of Neil P. Casey, White and Williams LLP and Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP Mr. Casey may be contacted at caseyn@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    South Adams County Water and Sanitation District Takes Proactive Step to Treat PFAS, Safeguard Water Supplies

    November 28, 2022 —
    DENVER, Colo., Nov. 15, 2022 — The South Adams Country Water and Sanitation District (District) is enhancing its water treatment process to meet EPA Health Advisory Levels (HALs) for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water supplies. Deemed “forever chemicals,” PFAS is a group of human-made chemicals used in many applications, including stain- and water-resistant fabrics and carpeting, cleaning products, paints, and firefighting foams. PFAS are resistant to grease, oil, water, and heat and may enter water supplies from landfills, the use of firefighting foam (e.g., at airports, fire training facilities, petroleum fires, etc.), industrial sites, and wastewater treatment plant discharge. The District’s water supply, serving over 67,000 residents in Commerce City and parts of unincorporated Adams County, comes primarily from 13 groundwater supply wells. As it continues to meet all federal and state drinking water requirements, the District has been proactively pursuing PFAS reduction strategies since it first discovered a low-level presence in its water supply through voluntary testing in 2018. Upon discovery, the District stopped drawing from its most impacted wells and has been purchasing additional treated water to blend into its supply to reduce PFAS levels along with optimizing use of their existing granular activated carbon treatment system. “Ever since the District first began voluntarily testing for PFAS, we have been monitoring for these compounds and working to reduce their impact on our customers,” said District Manager Abel Moreno. “The EPA has moved the goalposts, and we are taking steps to reduce the presence of PFAS even further. We are committed to finding long-term, sustainable solutions to offer our community high-quality drinking water.” To tackle the challenge, the District has hired leading environmental and construction services firm Brown and Caldwell to design a new 18 million gallons per day (MGD) ion exchange (IX) process at its Klein Water Treatment Facility. IX treatment is currently the most effective technology in removing PFAS/PFOA, consisting of a highly porous resin that acts as a powerful magnet to adsorb and hold onto the substances. The new system at the Klein facility will consist of seven IX treatment trains, a 375,000-gallon equalization tank, and six vertical turbine pumps to feed the IX trains from the District’s 13 groundwater supply wells. Furthermore, nine 5-micron cartridge filters will be installed to remove particulate matter in the water before reaching the IX trains, thus increasing the efficacy of the treatment process. Scheduled for completion by the end of 2026, the new IX treatment facility will provide a peak combined capacity of 26 MGD. About South Adams County Water and Sanitation District The South Adams County Water and Sanitation District is a special district providing water and sanitary sewer service to over 67,000 residents in Commerce City and parts of unincorporated Adams County. For more information about the District, please visit www.sacwsd.org About Brown and Caldwell Headquartered in Walnut Creek, California., Brown and Caldwell is a full-service environmental engineering and construction services firm with 52 offices and 1,800 professionals across North America and the Pacific. For 75 years, our creative solutions have helped municipalities, private industry, and government agencies successfully overcome their most challenging water and environmental obstacles. As an employee-owned company, Brown and Caldwell is passionate about exceeding our clients’ expectations and making a difference for our employees, our communities, and our environment. For more information, visit www.brownandcaldwell.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Landowners Try to Choke Off Casino's Water With 19th-Century Lawsuit

    December 17, 2015 —
    California’s latest water war is being waged at the edge of wine country against an Indian tribe planning a massive casino expansion as a group of landowners tries to stop them with a lawsuit from 1897. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is spending $170 million to build out its resort, featuring a 12-story tower on a bucolic landscape where only the mountains are higher. The tribe has also snapped up 1,400 more acres to house cramped residents of its reservation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg