BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield 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


    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Attorney’s Fees Entitlement And Application Under Subcontract Default Provision

    N.J. Governor Fires Staff at Authority Roiled by Patronage Hires

    How Philadelphia I-95 Span Destroyed by Fire Reopened in Just 12 Days

    Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

    Los Angeles Team Secures Summary Judgment for Hotel Owner & Manager in Tenant’s Lawsuit

    High Court Case Review Frees Jailed Buffalo Billions Contractor CEO

    Outcry Over Peru’s Vast Graft Probe Prompts Top Lawyer to Quit

    CA Supreme Court Set to Rule on Important Occurrence Issue Certified by Ninth Circuit

    The Credibility of Your Expert (Including Your Delay Expert) Matters in Construction Disputes

    What Makes a Great Lawyer?

    NTSB Faults Maintenance, Inspection Oversight for Fern Hollow Bridge Collapse

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    Corporate Formalities: A Necessary Part of Business

    No Friday Night Lights at $60 Million Texas Stadium: Muni Credit

    Beverly Hills Voters Reject Plan for Enclave's Tallest Building

    St. Petersburg Florida’s Tallest Condo Tower Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    From Singapore to Rio Green Buildings Keep Tropical Tenants Cool

    The 411 on the New 415 Location of the Golden State Warriors

    New ANSI Requirements for Fireplace Screens

    Contractor Allegedly Stole Construction Materials

    Labor Code § 2708 Presumption of Employer Negligence is Not Applicable Against Homeowners Who Hired Unlicensed Painting Company

    Patriarch Partners Decision Confirms Government Subpoenas May Constitute a “Claim” Under D&O Policy; Warns Policyholders to Think Broadly When Representing Facts and Circumstances to Insurers

    California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

    The CA Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review of McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.) As to Whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the Exclusive Remedy for All Defect Claims Arising Out of New Residential Construction

    Warren Renews Criticism of Private Equity’s Role in Housing

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

    PulteGroup Fires Exec Accused of Defamation By Founder’s Heir

    Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado

    Construction Firms Complain of Missed Payments on Redevelopment Project

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Fall Meeting in Washington, D.C.

    Previously Owned U.S. Home Sales Rise to Eight-Month High

    Eight Ways to Protect a Construction Company Before a Claim Is Filed

    Subprime Bonds Are Back With Different Name Seven Years After U.S. Crisis

    Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Supreme Court Says “Stay”

    Contrasting Expert Opinions Result in Denial of Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

    Construction Law Alert: Unlicensed Contractors On Federal Projects Entitled To Payment Under The Miller Act

    Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of Policies

    No Subrogation, Contribution Rights for Carrier Defending Construction Defect Claim

    Is Settling a Bond Claim in the Face of a Seemingly Clear Statute of Limitations Defense Bad Faith?

    Waiver of Subrogation Enforced, Denying Insurers Recovery Against Additional Insured in $500 Million Off-Shore Oil Rig Loss

    Not so Fast! How Does Revoking Acceleration of a Note Impact the Statute of Limitations?

    Florida trigger

    U.S. Housing Starts Exceed Estimates After a Stronger December

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    Apartment Investors Turn to Suburbs After Crowding Cities

    Illinois Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect Claim Triggers Initial Grant of Coverage
    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

    Construction Professionals Could Face More Liability Exposure Following California Appellate Ruling

    December 17, 2024 —
    San Diego/San Francisco, Calif. - The California Court of Appeal recently reversed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a geotechnical engineering firm that had conducted a brief inspection of a residential construction project's footing trench for $360. The case arose when homeowner Cheryl Lynch experienced significant property damage after her home's foundation failed and the structure began subsiding into a slope. Lynch sued Peter & Associates for professional negligence and nuisance, despite having no direct contractual relationship with the firm, which had been hired by her contractor to perform the geotechnical inspection. The court distinguished this case from Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370, which had limited auditors' professional duty to third parties, noting that Bily dealt with purely economic damages, whereas Lynch involved physical property damage, making Bily's policy concerns about unlimited liability inapplicable. The court emphasized that construction professional negligence cases, particularly those involving residential property damage, warrant a different analysis than cases involving economic loss. Reprinted courtesy of Jamison Rayfield, Lewis Brisbois and Brian Slome, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Rayfield may be contacted at Jamison.Rayfield@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Slome may be contacted at Brian.Slome@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Interior Designer Licensure

    October 11, 2017 —
    An interior designer that provides residential interior design services does NOT need to be registered or licensed with the state. On this point, Florida Statute s. 481.229(6)(a) specifies: (6) This part shall not apply to: (a) A person who performs interior design services or interior decorator services for any residential application, provided that such person does not advertise as, or represent himself or herself as, an interior designer. For purposes of this paragraph, “residential applications” includes all types of residences, including, but not limited to, residence buildings, single-family homes, multifamily homes, townhouses, apartments, condominiums, and domestic outbuildings appurtenant to one-family or two-family residences. However, “residential applications” does not include common areas associated with instances of multiple-unit dwelling applications. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Turner Construction Selected for Anaheim Convention Center Expansion Project

    May 21, 2014 —
    The Anaheim, California city council selected Turner Construction Company “to manage a $180 million expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center, a venue that hosted 238 tradeshows, conventions, meetings and consumer events in 2013,” according to Construction Digital. “Turner’s Southern California office calls Anaheim home, and we are pleased to be working on such a great project in our own backyard,” Kevin Dow, Vice President and General Manager of Turner’s Southern California office told Construction Digital. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Clarifies Pennsylvania’s Strict Liability Standard

    January 14, 2015 —
    In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 6474923 (Pa. Nov. 19, 2014), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania discussed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s products liability law and, overturning prior precedent, clarified the law. In particular, the Court, overturned Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978), clarified the role of the judge and the jury in products liability cases and settled the question of whether Pennsylvania would adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability §§ 1, et. seq. (Third Restatement) as the standard for deciding Pennsylvania products liability cases. The Tincher decision makes clear that Pennsylvania will continue to apply § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Second Restatement) in products liability cases and that jurors, not the court, will decide the question of whether a product is in a defective condition. Plaintiffs may prove that a product is defective using either the consumer expectations test or the risk-utility test. Background The Tincher case arose out a fire that occurred at the home of Terrance and Judith Tincher on June 20, 2007. The Tinchers alleged that the fire started when a lightning strike near their home caused a small puncture in corrugated steel tubing (CSST) carrying natural gas to a fireplace located in their home. The defendant, Omega Flex, Inc. (Omega Flex) manufactured the CSST. Reprinted courtesy of William Doerler, White and Willams LLP and Edward Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Massive Fire Destroys Building, Firefighters Rescue Construction Worker

    March 26, 2014 —
    A “5-alarm fire burned down a residential building under construction in the Montrose area” of Houston, Texas, reported Click 2 Houston. Almost 200 emergency personnel were on the scene. Captain Ruy Lozano told Click 2 Houston that “firefighters worked to contain the blaze, before the imminent collapse because the fire suppression systems were not yet in place for the under-construction building.” ABC News reported that fire fighters rescued Curtis Reissig, a construction worker from the fire. “It’s burning my eyes, my throat. I can’t breathe and I can’t hardly see anything,” Reissig told ABC News. “I could see a window. I went to that window. Trying to open that window in a panic. I couldn’t get the thing open. Smoke was getting heavier, just trying to get some air.” ABC News reported that Reissig jumped down from a fifth story balcony to a ledge below, where “firefighters pulled him to safety.” Read the full story at Click 2 Houston... Read the full story at ABC News... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit

    December 11, 2013 —
    Officials claimed the failure of a bridge in Afton Township, Illinois was because trucks owned by Welded Construction used the bridge despite exceeding the bridge’s weight limit of 36.5 tons. The firm argued that they should be responsible for the depreciated cost of the bridge, not its replacement cost. Welded Construction had been using the bridge to get to the site of an oil pipeline construction project for Enbridge Energy. Replacement of the bridge was initially estimated at $933,000, but that was in advance of any design work. Enbridge Energy settled the case at $900,000, which should cover most or all of the cost of repair or replacement. Some federal funds may also be available for repairing or constructing a new bridge. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    April 03, 2023 —
    Part I of this series discussed the benefits of construction participants using alternative project delivery methods and properly addressing change order issues, rising costs and payment structure issues to manage construction during these uncertain times. Part II below explores the possibility that higher prices and steady consumer demand could lead to an increase in unscrupulous contractor practices—and how owners can mitigate that risk, managing the challenges posed by the unforeseen labor shortage and turnover in the industry and evolving your construction team for short-term and long-term success. Higher Prices and Steady Demand With the demand for construction projects relatively stable, contractors remaining in high demand and a surge in prices for construction materials and components, owners are under great pressure to accept less favorable construction terms. This has presented unscrupulous contractors with perceived leverage over owners and new opportunities to engage in questionable business practices and fraud. Although some contractors may seek to stretch the boundaries of a construction contract, other contractors are more deliberate. Falsifying payment applications and invoices to inflate labor or materials costs, billing for work not yet performed or materials not yet delivered to the project site and manipulating change orders are examples of illicit and fraudulent practices by contractors. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey S. Wertman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client

    January 02, 2019 —
    Senate Bill 954: MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLOSURES. California regards mediation as a beneficial process for parties to resolve disputes in an expeditious and economical fashion. To assure open and candid participation, there is a longstanding policy in California to maintain confidentiality during the mediation process. However, the mediation confidentiality statutes have prevented some clients from suing their·attorneys for alleged malpractice that occurred during the mediation process. (see Cassel v. Superior Court, (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113). Senate Bill ("SB") 954, was recently passed and thereafter approved by the Governor on September 11, 2018 to address this concern. SB 954, which will amend California Evidence Code section 1122 and add California Evidence Code section 1129, requires that an attorney representing a client participating in a mediation or a mediation consultation provide that client with a written disclosure and acknowledgement containing the mediation confidentiality restrictions as set forth in the California Evidence Code. This written disclosure and acknowledgement requirement does not apply to class or representative actions. Additionally, the failure of an attorney to follow the new requirement will not be a basis to set aside an agreement prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation. Any communication, document, or writing related to an attorney's compliance with the disclosure requirement will not be considered confidential and may be used in a disciplinary proceeding if the communication, document, or writing does not disclose anything said or done or any admission made in the course of the mediation. California Evidence Code section 1129 sets forth the exact language that must be used in the disclosure. It even informs the client that all communications between the client and the attorney made in preparation for a mediation, or during a mediation, are confidential and cannot be disclosed or used (except in extremely limited circumstances), even if the client later decides to sue the attorney for malpractice because of something that happens during the mediation. The new disclosure requirement will allow mediation to maintain the confidentiality that encourages open and candid communications during the process while ensuring that before clients agree to mediation that the clients are made aware of how that confidentiality can potentially impact them. SB 954, will take effect on January 1,2019. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Pearce, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Pearce may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of