BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnesses
    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


    Surplus Lines Carrier Can Force Arbitration in Louisiana Despite Statute Limiting Arbitration

    No Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    California Commission Recommends Switching To Fault-Based Wildfire Liability Standard for Public Utilities

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Bars Coverage for Pool Damage

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

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

    Blackstone to Buy Chicago’s Willis Tower for $1.3 Billion

    Homebuilders Offer Hope for U.K. Economy

    Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

    Denial of Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens Does Not Automatically Create Basis for Certiorari Relief

    Three's a Trend: Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits Uphold Broad "Related Claims" Language

    Issuing Judgment After Confirmation of Appraisal Award Overturned

    The Basics of Subcontractor Defaults – Key Considerations

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    Security on Large Construction Projects. The Payment Remedy You Probably Never Heard of

    Builders Seek to Modify Scaffold Law

    No Trial Credit in NJ Appellate Decision for Non-Settling Successive Tortfeasors – Must Demonstrate Proof of Initial Tortfeasor Negligence and Proximate Cause

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

    Unpaid Subcontractor Walks Off the Job and Wins

    NYC’s First Five-Star Hotel in Decade Seen at One57 Tower

    20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!

    Five Keys to Driving Digital Transformation in Engineering and Construction

    Deference Given To Procuring Public Agency Regarding Material Deviation

    New Jersey Construction Company Owner and Employees Arrested for Fraud

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

    What You Need to Know About Enforcement Actions by the Contractors State License Board

    Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Class Action Status, Reducing Homes from 1000 to 71

    U.S. District Court of Colorado Interprets Insurance Policy’s Faulty Workmanship Exclusion and Exception for Ensuing Damage

    CLB Recommends Extensive Hawaii Contractor License Changes

    COVID-19 Response: California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board Implements Sweeping New Regulations to Prevent COVID-19 in the Workplace

    Homebuilder Confidence Takes a Beating

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations

    Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

    Need to Cover Yourself for “Crisis” Changes on a Job Site? Try These Tips (guest post)

    What to Look for in Subcontractor Warranty Endorsements

    Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

    The Burden of Betterment

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    Wildfire Smoke Threatens to Wipe Out Decades of Air Pollution Progress

    Congratulations to our 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    New York Preserves Subrogation Rights

    New York Appellate Court Expands Policyholders’ Ability to Plead and Seek Consequential Damages

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it) [UPDATE]

    Fence Attached to Building Covered Under Dwelling Provisions

    Insuring Lease/Leaseback Projects

    CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

    Dispute Resolution Provision in Subcontract that Says Owner, Architect or Engineer’s Decision Is Final

    No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period
    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

    Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures

    September 03, 2015 —
    In a 20 page opinion, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth District repudiated the holding of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (“Liberty Mutual”), and held that plaintiffs in construction defect actions must comply with the statutory pre-litigation inspection and repair procedures mandated by SB800 (the “Act”) regardless of whether they plead a cause of action for violation of the Act. The Case, McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (Carl Van Tassell), (Ct. of Appeal F069370) breathes new life into the Act’s right to repair requirements, and reinforces the Act’s stated purpose of seeking to limit the number of court cases by allowing a builder to resolve construction defect claims by agreeing to repair the homeowners’ residence. In McMillin, 37 homeowners filed a lawsuit against McMillin, the builder of their homes, alleging eight causes of action, including strict products liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranty. Plaintiffs’ third cause of action alleged violations of the Act. The plaintiffs did not follow the Act’s notification procedures and filed their lawsuit without providing McMillin with an opportunity to repair the alleged defects. Plaintiffs and McMillin attempted to negotiate a stay of the lawsuit to complete the Act’s prelitigation procedures. When talks broke down, plaintiffs dismissed the third cause of action and contended they were no longer required to follow the Act’s prelitigation procedures. McMillin filed a motion to stay with the trial court. The trial court denied McMillin’s motion concluding that under Liberty Mutual, “[plaintiffs] were entitled to plead common law causes of action in lieu of a cause of action for violation of the building standards set out in [the Act], and they were not required to submit to the prelitigation process of the Act when their complaint did not allege any cause of action for violation of the Act.” Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    2021 2Q Cost Report: Industry Execs Believe Recovery Is in Full Swing

    August 04, 2021 —
    The first six months of 2021 have seen big materials cost hikes, increasing labor shortages and uncertainty over federal action on a major infrastructure package. Despite the headwinds, ENR’s Construction Industry Confidence Index has surged up 17 points to a rating of 68—the highest single jump between quarters since the index was started in 2009. The previous record was 16 points between Q4 of 2011 and Q1 of 2012. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Keller, Engineering News-Record Mr. Keller may be contacted at kellerj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim

    May 06, 2019 —
    In Johnson v. The Raytheon Company, Inc., Case No. B281411 (2019) WL 1090217, plaintiff Laurence Johnson (Johnson) was a maintenance engineer employed by an independent contractor that provided control room staff to defendant Raytheon Company, Inc. (“Raytheon”). Johnson was monitoring the computers in the control room when he received low water level alarms pertaining to the water cooling towers. Johnson went to the cooling tower wall in order to look over the wall and verify the water level. Johnson saw the upper half of an extension ladder leaning against the cooling tower’s wall. The ladder had a warning sign which said, “CAUTION” and “THIS LADDER SECTION IS NOT DESIGNED FOR SEPARATE USE.” Despite these warnings, Johnson used the ladder. As he was climbing the ladder it slid out causing him to fall and suffer injuries. Johnson sued Raytheon, the hirer of the independent contractor, arguing the ladder, among other things, was unsafe and lead to Johnson’s injuries. Johnson believed that Raytheon’s course of conduct of leaving a platform ladder (as opposed to the extension ladder) at the wall constituted an implied agreement to always have one present, on which the independent contractor’s employees relied. Johnson further argued that Raytheon was negligent in providing a dangerous extension ladder, as opposed to a platform ladder, at the wall on the night of the accident. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Brett G. Moore, Michael C. Parme, Lindsey N. Ursua and Lawrence S. Zucker II Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Ms. Lindsey may be contacted at lursua@hbblaw.com Mr. Lawrence may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Virtual Jury Trials: The Next Wave of Remote Legal Practice

    July 13, 2020 —
    One of the most obvious and unavoidable results of the COVID-19 crisis has been the postponement of jury service and, by extension, all jury trials. Given the inherent difficulties of convening juries in a world of social distancing, it is likely that multiple jurisdictions will be unable to conduct live jury trials for at least the next several months. Recognizing the mounting delay and substantial docket backlog that is attendant to several months without jury trials, one court most recently permitted the litigants, upon consent, to try a new innovation – the nation’s first virtual jury trial conducted entirely on the Zoom platform. More than two dozen potential jurors in Collin County, Texas attended jury selection from home by smartphone, laptop, and tablet, a process that was streamed live on YouTube. The presiding judge occasionally provided prospective jurors technical advice on how to best use their devices. Once selected, the jurors virtually attended a one-day, “summary jury trial” of an insurance dispute in which they heard a condensed version of the case and delivered a non-binding verdict. The parties were then able to gauge how their cases would fare before a jury in a full-scale trial and, with that insight, agreed to proceed to a mediation in an attempt to reach a resolution. Court officials further touted the abbreviated, non-binding experience as an ideal test for the viability of remotely holding jury trials that would result in a final judgment. This real-world test, albeit in a non-binding exercise, may be an indication of things to come, as courts in Indiana and Arizona have already communicated an intention to conduct jury trials remotely once able. Reprinted courtesy of David R. Zaslow, White and Williams and Mark Paladino, White and Williams Mr. Zaslow may be contacted at zaslowd@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Paladino may be contacted at paladinom@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Alexus Williams Receives Missouri Lawyers Media 2021 Women’s Justice Pro Bono Award

    November 29, 2021 —
    St. Louis, Mo. (October 19, 2021) - St. Louis Associate Alexus Williams has received the Missouri Lawyers Media 2021 Women’s Justice Pro Bono Award, which honors women attorneys who have contributed significant effort and time to pro bono work. In connection with this honor, Ms. Williams was interviewed by Missouri Lawyers Media for its 2021 Women’s Justice Awards (WJA) supplement. In the article featuring Ms. Williams, the publication explained that she has “developed a reputation for helping others” and “has continually found ways to level disparities to make the system work for everyone.” For example, as a member of the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis Executive Committee’s Young Lawyers Division, Ms. Williams co-chaired a committee on racial equity during the civil unrest of 2020. Ms. Williams told Missouri Lawyers Media, “When I was looking at grad programs, law school was one that seemed like it kind of aligned with what I was passionate about, which was helping people, counseling people, being able to be of assistance in different kinds of situations.” She further noted, “Everyone has to play their part but also everyone needs the opportunity to play their part.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alexus Williams, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Williams may be contacted at Alexus.Williams@lewisbrisbois.com

    Federal Energy Regulator Approves Rule to Speed Clean Energy Grid Links

    August 28, 2023 —
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission unanimously passed a sweeping rule at its July 27 open meeting meant to eliminate U.S. transmission system bottlenecks for new power generation and storage. But stakeholders worry that more needs to be done to add needed and viable clean energy projects to the grid. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    AB 3018: Amendments to the Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements on California Public Projects

    February 18, 2019 —
    What California Contractors Need To Know About AB 3018 California contractors used to face limited consequences for non-compliance with the state’s skilled and trained workforce requirements on public works projects. A sea-change to the statutory landscape went into effect on January 1, 2019 as a result of Assembly Bill No. 3018 (“AB 3018”).1 The Code re-defines what constitutes a skilled/trained workforce by eliminating existing exemptions, strengthens monthly reporting guidelines and agency oversight, and empowers the Labor Commissioner and public agencies with enforcement tools that include monetary penalties and debarment. Contractors who fail to institute a program to comply with AB 3018’s reporting requirements do so at their peril. What Does The 30% Requirement Mean? Previously, in order to comply with the skilled workforce requirements2, 30% of skilled journeypersons had to be graduates of an apprenticeship program, except for certain listed trades which were exempt from the apprenticeship percentage requirement3. AB 3018 eliminates this exception for the listed occupations and requires 30% of all trades to be comprised of apprenticeship program graduates. Reprinted courtesy of Alex R. Baghdassarian, Peckar & Abramson and Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at Abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

    April 05, 2011 —

    Recently, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the decision in American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company v Hathaway Development Company, Inc. stating that because Whisnant’s faulty workmanship caused damage to the surrounding properties, the construction defects constituted “occurrences” under the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy. Unlike the South Carolina Supreme court ruling in the case of Crossman Communities v Harleysville Mutual, the Georgia Supreme Court stated that an accident can happen intentionally if the effect is not the intended result.

    Interestingly, the only dissenting judge, J. Melton, disagreed with his colleagues on the basis that “although the term ‘accident’ is not specifically defined in the policy, it is axiomatic that an ‘accident’ cannot result from ‘intentional’ behavior.” It is clear that what constitutes an occurrence in CGL policies is still being hotly debated.

    Read the full story...

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