BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield 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


    Buy a House or Pay Off College? $1.2 Trillion Student Debt Heats Up in Capital

    Policy's One Year Suit Limitation Does Not Apply to Challenging the Insurer's Claims Handling

    Housing Markets Continue to Improve

    The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

    Lawsuit Decries Environmental Assessment for Buffalo, NY, Expressway Cap Project

    Blackstone Said to Sell Boston Buildings for $2.1 Billion

    Don’t Waive Your Right to Arbitrate (Unless You Want To!)

    Call Me Maybe? . . . Don’t Waive Your Rights Under the Right to Repair Act’s Prelitigation Procedures

    Federal Court in New York Court Dismisses Civil Authority Claim for COVID-19 Coverage

    Competition to Design Washington D.C.’s 11th Street Bridge Park

    How to Lose Your Contractor’s License in 90 Days (or Less): California and Louisiana

    New Zealand Using Plywood Banned Elsewhere

    Connecticut Federal District Court Follows Majority Rule on Insurance Policy Anti-Assignment Clauses

    Professional Malpractice Statute of Limitations in Construction Context

    Extreme Heat, Smoke Should Get US Disaster Label, Groups Say

    Constructive Notice Established as Obstacle to Relation Back Doctrine

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    New Florida Bill Shortens Time for Construction-Defect Lawsuits

    DC Wins Largest-Ever Civil Penalty in US Housing Discrimination Suit

    Federal Interpleader Dealing with Competing Claims over Undisputed Payable to Subcontractor

    Another Guilty Plea in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection

    Conditional Judgment On Replacement Costs Awarded

    Will Maryland Beltway Developer's Exit Doom $7.6B P3 Project?

    The Importance of a Notice of Completion to Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Insurer Not Required to Show Prejudice from an Insured’s Late Notice When the Parties Contract for a Specific Reporting Period

    It’s Time for a Net Zero Building Boom

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    Public-Private Partnerships: When Will Reality Meet the Promise?

    Asbestos Exclusion Bars Coverage

    No Prejudicial Error in Refusing to Give Jury Instruction on Predominant Cause

    Certificates of Insurance May Confer Coverage

    Contractors: A Lesson on Being Friendly

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Louisiana District Court Declines to Apply Total Pollution Exclusion

    Snooze You Lose? Enforcement of Notice and Timing Provisions

    Adaptive Reuse: Creative Reimagining of Former Office Space to Address Differing Demands

    California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

    Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

    Nevada Supreme Court Declares Subcontractor Not Required to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice to Supplier

    You're Doing Construction in Russia, Now What?

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/10/24) – Hotels Integrate AI, Baby-Boomers Stay Put, and Insurance Affects Housing Market

    California Appellate Court Rules That Mistakenly Grading the Wrong Land Is Not an Accident

    Why’d You Have To Say That?

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    Recommendations and Drafting Considerations for Construction Contingency Clauses Part III

    Conn. Appellate Court Overturns Jury Verdict, Holding Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy for Injuries Arising From Open Manhole Was State’s Highway Defect Statute

    Connecticut Crumbling Concrete Cases Not Covered Under "Collapse" Provision in Homeowner's Policy
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    After Sixty Years, Subcontractors are Back in the Driver’s Seat in Bidding on California Construction Projects

    September 22, 2016 —
    For almost the last sixty years, the standard for bidding on California construction projects has been governed by the landmark case of Drennan v. Star Paving (1958) 51 Cal.2d 409; which generally states that the contractor bidding to perform work for a project owner is entitled to rely on the bids of subcontractors in formulating its own bid to do the work. Under the equitable legal doctrine of “promissory estoppel”, which serves as the foundation of the Drennan case, even though there was no actual “contract” between the contractor and subcontractor at the time of bid, the contractor was entitled to enforce the subcontractor’s bid in reliance on this doctrine. For bidding purposes, promissory estoppel serves as an equitable substitute for an actual contract. The courts have, since that time, allowed promissory estoppel to act as a substitute for the contract in public bidding because, in equity, when a contractor “reasonably” relies on a subcontractor’s bid in formulating its own bid, it would be unjust to allow the subcontractor to withdraw a bid on which the contractor had relied in submitting its own successful bid. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

    September 01, 2011 —

    The California Court of Appeals has upheld the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion in Claredon American Insurance Company v. Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder. This case was triggered by a water intrusion problem at a condominium complex, the Terraces at Emerystation, built and sold by Wareham Development Corporation. The insurer, Claredon, retained Risk Enterprise Management as the third party claims administrator. REM retained the law firm Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder. The construction defect case was settled in 2007 and the condo owners moved back by early 2008.

    Due to issues with the claims settlement, Claredon filed against REM for “professional negligence, indemnity, apportionment and contribution,” with a cross-complaint that the cross-defendants negligently defended the developer, Wareham.

    In response, the cross-defendants filed a motion to strike the cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied this motion and now this has been upheld by the appeals court.

    The court noted that “The fundamental thrust of the cross-complaint is not protected litigation-related speech and petitioning activity undertaken on another’s behalf in a judicial proceeding.”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    PFAS and the Challenge of Cleaning Up “Forever”

    July 31, 2023 —
    From a stream of legal challenges, to ever-expanding regulations on things like cosmetics and drinking water, PFAS are the “forever chemicals” keeping companies and consumers on high alert. While industries scramble to remove the synthetic compounds from products, scientists are researching new techniques for scrubbing PFAS from the environment. There is money to be had for those who can find a more streamlined method of purging the substances—the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has an $800 million contract on the table for the handling, destruction and replacement of PFAS-laden fire-fighting foam—leaving technology companies racing to create solutions. The three main PFAS cleaning techniques currently relied upon can be very effective but are also costly and may leave questionable byproducts in their wake. The established approaches include:
    • Granular Activated Carbon. As one of the most studied treatments for PFAS removal, granular activated carbon is often used in water treatment plants. Large beds of carbon essentially soak up the unwanted chemicals. After the Sweeney Water Plant in North Carolina, whose water source is downstream from a fluorochemical-producing Chemours plant, was found to be contaminated with PFAS, the plant invested around $46 million into upgraded activated carbon systems. Once installed, these systems cost roughly $2.9 million to operate yearly, as the carbon needs to be replaced each time it reaches capacity. Though pricey, the plant says that the process now clears close to 100% of PFAS.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of PFAS Team, Pillsbury

    UCF Sues Architects and Contractors Over Stadium Construction Defects

    October 19, 2017 —
    The University of Central Florida (UCF) filed suit over alleged construction defects of their 45,000-seat arena including the claim of “premature wear of the steel,” spokesman Chad Binette stated, according to the Orlando Sentinel. Bid documents suggest that rust may be an issue. UCF recently sought contractors for “Stadium Emergency Rust Repairs.” The Orlando Sentinel reported that the university stated “the word ‘emergency’ reflects deadlines for the football season instead of safety concerns.” Other documents also claimed ongoing rust remediation. The UCF stadium had earned the nickname “Bounce House” from the arena “subtly swaying as fans jumped together to the song ‘Kernkraft 400’ by Zombie Nation. UCF spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2008 stiffening the underpinnings of the stadium by bolting additional steel to about 160 beams,” according to the Orlando Sentinel. Officials claim that the stadium was never unsafe. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Flood-Threat Assessment Finds Danger Goes Far Beyond U.S. Homes

    October 18, 2021 —
    If the floods don’t get you, lack of electricity or a swamped hospital might. Nearly a quarter of U.S. critical infrastructure—utilities, airports, police stations and more—is at risk of being inundated by flooding, according to a new report by First Street Foundation, a Brooklyn nonprofit dedicated to making climate risk more visible to the public. Around 25% of national critical infrastructure is at risk. Roughly 14% of Americans’ properties face direct risk from major storms, but the study shows danger extends far from those property lines. Reprinted courtesy of Leslie Kaufman, Bloomberg, Rachael Dottle, Bloomberg and Mira Rojanasakul, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field

    January 15, 2014 —
    The family of Angel Garcia, a construction worker who fell to his death while working on Texas A&M’s football stadium (Kyle Field), has filed a $100 million lawsuit against six construction companies claiming inadequate safety policies, procedures, and negligence, Jordan Overturf of The Eagle reported. According to The Eagle, Garcia’s attorneys alleged, “[Garcia] was ‘catapulted off the edge of a fourth-floor ramp’ on the northeast side when a section of concrete fell onto the bucket of the skid steer-loader he was operating. The tractor hit a steel beam during the fall, which exerted enough force to eject Garcia from the tractor.” Garcia did not survive his injuries. The complaint claims the companies involved violated the Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules and regulations. The defendants in the suit were unavailable for comment, according to The Eagle. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How Long Does a Civil Lawsuit Take?

    August 14, 2018 —
    How long does a civil lawsuit take? One common question among parties to a civil lawsuit, whether a plaintiff or defendant, is how long will it take to reach a resolution? The answer is tricky. The time it takes to resolve a civil lawsuit is highly dependent on various factors including the complexity of the matter and the parties’ willingness to settle. At the outset, parties to a civil case may resolve the matter at any time by mutual agreement (i.e., settlement). In that case, the parties draft a Stipulation and Order outlining the terms of the agreed settlement and submit the document to the judge for approval. Absent of any glaring inequity in the terms of the Stipulation, the judge will typically approve of the parties’ settlement, and the matter will be deemed resolved (either in whole or in part, depending on the case, the terms of the settlement and indemnity agreement). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara

    What’s in a Name? Trademarks and Construction

    April 25, 2022 —
    Every company, no matter the industry, relies on its name and reputation to develop customers and generate revenue. Think about the brands that dominate American culture such as Nike, Wal-Mart, Amazon or McDonald’s, then imagine those businesses without the ability to adequately protect their names, slogans and logos. No doubt the vultures would circle and brand power would most likely become short lived or otherwise diluted to the point of non-existence. The construction industry is not exempt, and the industry leaders benefit from identifiable names and logos, built over years of reputation and brand building. While the tools necessary to protect your company’s brand exist at the state and federal level, many business owners or leaders are unfamiliar with the trademark process and unaware of the consequences of not utilizing those tools. Trademark Registration Trademarks are “concise and unequivocal identifiers” that provide potential customers with essential information about your business. With a single word, tagline, logo, color—essentially anything that can carry meaning—potential customers learn to associate particular product or service characteristics and expected quality level with a particular source. That is, your mark is the way that consumers connect your expertise and reputation to your business and nobody else’s. It serves a critical role in reducing consumer search costs and capturing your hard-earned business opportunities. Reprinted courtesy of Carol Wilhelm and J.P. Vogel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Vogel may be contacted at jpvogel@grayreed.com Ms. Wilhelm may be contacted at cwilhelm@grayreed.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of