BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windows
    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


    Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?

    Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Eliminates Loss from Hurricane

    Mortgage Battle Flares as U.K. Homebuying Loses Allure

    Chinese Brooklyn-to-Los Angeles Plans Surge: Real Estate

    Congratulations Bryan Stofferahn, August Hotchkin, and Eileen Gaisford on Their Promotion to Partner!

    Don’t Fall in Trap of Buying the Cheapest Insurance Policy as it May be Bad for Your Business Risks and Needs

    Toll Brothers Surges on May Gain in Deposits for New Homes

    LEEDigation: A Different Take

    Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered

    BWB&O Partner Tyler Offenhauser and Associate Lizbeth Lopez Won Their Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the Privette Doctrine

    Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

    Blackstone Said to Sell Boston Buildings for $2.1 Billion

    The Metaphysics of When an Accident is an “Accident” (or Not) Under Your Insurance Policy

    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    Timely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with Insurer

    A Relatively Small Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

    Ex-Detroit Demolition Official Sentenced for Taking Bribes

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    National Lobbying Firm Opens Colorado Office, Strengthening Construction Defect Efforts

    How AB5 has Changed the Employment Landscape

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

    NEHRP Recommendations Likely To Improve Seismic Design

    Colorado Legislative Update: HB 20-1155, HB 20-1290, and HB 20-1348

    Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien

    Texas “your work” exclusion

    The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

    Useful Life: A Valuable Theory for Reducing Damages

    N.J. Appellate Court Confirms that AIA Construction Contract Bars Insurer's Subrogation Claim

    Tort Claims Against an Alter Ego May Be Considered an Action “On a Contract” for the Purposes of an Attorneys’ Fees Award under California Civil Code section 1717

    Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work

    William Lyon to Acquire RSI Communities

    BHA’s Next MCLE Seminar in San Diego on July 25th

    Muir named Brown and Caldwell Eastern leader

    Texas Couple Claim Many Construction Defects in Home

    Are Millennials Finally Moving Out On Their Own?

    New Case Law Update: Mountain Valleys, Chevron Deference and a Long-Awaited Resolution on the Sacketts’ Small Lot

    Property Damage Caused By Construction Next Door Covered as Ensuing Loss

    Lewis Brisbois Ranks 11th in Law360’s Glass Ceiling Report on Gender Parity in Law Firms

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

    Home Building Mergers and Acquisitions 2014 Predictions

    Federal Courts Keep Chipping Away at the CDC Eviction Moratorium

    Ninth Circuit Rules Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test of Implied Certification under the False Claims Act Mandatory

    Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered

    Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

    Defining Constructive Acceleration

    California Expands on Scope of Coverage for Soft Cost Claims

    The Overlooked Nevada Rule In an Arena Project Lawsuit

    Steps to Curb Construction Defect Actions for Homebuilders
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Florida Federal Court to Examine Issues of Alleged Arbitrator Conflicts of Interests in Panama Canal Case

    May 24, 2021 —
    The parties in a $238-million dispute over the construction of the third set of locks for the Panama Canal are raising issues concerning alleged conflicts of interest on the part of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) arbitrators in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.[2] The case may address rarely litigated issues concerning whether arbitrators who sit on multiple arbitration panels together or who support appointment of each other to lead arbitration panels have disabling conflicts of interest. The case pits Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A. (“Grupo”), a consortium of Spanish, Italian, Belgian, and Panamanian construction firms, against Autoridad del Canal de Panama (“ACP”), the Panamanian entity that operates the Panama Canal and that sponsored the multi-billion-dollar, decade-long project to expand the Canal’s capacity by building a new set of locks (the “Project”). The current dispute (the “Panama 1 Arbitration”), which centers on the suitability of the rock coming from the excavations to be used to produce concrete aggregates for the Project, was arbitrated before a three-member ICC Tribunal and resulted in a $238-million award to ACP and against Grupo. The ICC Tribunal reversed a decision of the dispute review board established in the parties’ contract. Reprinted courtesy of Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLP and Philip Z. Langer, Fox Rothschild LLP Ms. Biser may be contacted at sbiser@foxrothschild.com Mr. Langer may be contacted at planger@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Dealing with Hazardous Substances on the Construction Site

    July 10, 2018 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome Vickie Lane. Vickie is the primary point of contact for Business Development with HAZMAT Plans & Programs, a consulting and training firm that also works under the name of HP&P Safety. Vickie’s functions with HP&P include extensive pre-project research and support though estimating, planning and cost administration. Vickie attended Ohio State University and now enjoys her role as a first time grandmother and spending free time up in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Vickie can be reached at vlane@hppsafety.com or on Twitter @HAZMATPlans and @hpandpsafety. Most of us perceive hazards on a construction site to be those that can be readily visualized or perhaps easily imagined, like trench cave-ins or falls from heights. These are the obvious, but what about the nocuous, microscopic hazards that can’t be seen by the human eye, but can destroy the health of your workers? Welcome to the world of hazardous materials. The inherent danger associated with hazardous substances is workers might not be not aware of exposure. Think of a snake in the dark scenario. If it is a rattlesnake, you have warning before the bite. A cobra on the other hand gives no such warning and the bite can be fatal. So it can be with hazardous and toxic substances. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    In Matter of First Impression, California Appellate Court Finds a Claim for a Real Estate Professional’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty is Assignable

    January 28, 2025 —
    San Diego, Calif. (January 17, 2025) - The California Court of Appeal recently reversed a judgment entered in favor of real estate brokers who were sued for breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of residential real estate in Malibu. The Court of Appeal found the trial court erred when it rendered judgment in favor of the brokers on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims that had been assigned to her. The trial court reasoned that claims for breach of fiduciary duty against real estate brokers are highly personalized tort causes of action, which cannot be assigned. The Court of Appeal disagreed. In a case of first impression, it held that a cause of action for breach of a real estate broker’s fiduciary duties, which seeks damages related to property rights and pecuniary interests, is assignable. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Lazar v. Bishop, issued December 19, 2024, involved a unique set of facts. The seller bought the property in 2006. His daughter, Laura Lazar, lived at the property. The seller hired a real estate broker to sell the home. The broker listed the property for $4.2 million. Thereafter, she persuaded the seller to drop the listing price to $3.15 million, the price at which it was ultimately sold. Reprinted courtesy of Briane Slome, Lewis Brisbois and Pamela Albanese, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Slome may be contacted at Brian.Slome@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Albanese may be contacted at Pamela.Albanese@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Public Works Bid Protests – Who Is Responsible? Who Is Responsive?

    December 14, 2020 —
    Most Public Works Solicitations Are Low Bid The process for awarding public works projects in California is controlled by the Public Contract Code. Generally, regardless of whether the public agency is the State, a county, a city or a local district, the project is awarded to the contractor who is “responsible” and submits the least expensive “responsive” bid. This is generally known as a “low bid” contract. In the context of public works, the terms responsible and responsive have very important meanings. As a result, State and local governments have gotten into very expensive trouble for not following the law. So, to understand how to best present a bid protest on a low bid solicitation, you, as a contractor should have a good understanding of the meaning of these terms. Note: There are other methods of contracting for public works that are not low bid, which are typically called “best value” contracts because the procurement process considers factors other than just price. These methods are typically used for large projects because the added complexity and expense of the procurement process only makes sense when the project is itself complex and expensive. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric Divine, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Divine may be contacted at edivine@porterlaw.com

    Number of Occurrences Depends on Who is Sued

    August 20, 2014 —
    According to David L. Beck of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (as published by Association of Corporate Counsel), an Oregon court “held that property damage incurred to a condominium project resulting from a myriad of construction defects constituted just one occurrence under the relevant excess general liability policy.” In Chartis Specialty Ins. Co. v. American Contractors Ins. Co Risk Retention Group, et al., Chartis argued that “[b]ecause there were multiple defects/conditions resulting in property damage” there were also “multiple occurrences.” However, “[t]he court disagreed, finding that despite various defects, the property damages at issue arose from just one occurrence: the developers' failure to perform its duties.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Risky Business: Contractual Protections in the 'New Normal'

    January 04, 2023 —
    The point of contracts is to create certainty to avoid litigated or arbitrated disputes. Still, the various parties in the construction process may have different risk tolerances. For example, general contractors are often characterized as “risk-tolerant.” That risk, though, is usually calculated by the contractor internally, outside the terms of the written contract, based on an assumption that the contractor can get the work done more cheaply and more quickly than the owner anticipated. Project owners typically want and expect close-to-absolute certitude—absolutely as to cost—in their construction contracts. The standard fixed-price or lump-sum construction contract is geared toward protecting that interest. Post-COVID-19, however, the discussion in the industry suggests that all bets are off when pricing and agreeing to construction work. Labor and materials shortages have sent owners and their design consultants backpedaling when general contractors pursuing a fixed-price contract seek contractual concessions that “un-fix” the price. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III , Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Airbnb Declares End to Party!

    January 27, 2020 —
    As municipalities around the country evaluate changes to their respective codes in an effort to exert greater control over bad actors in the vacation rental market, Airbnb announced on November 2nd that it is banning party houses. The move comes in response to the shooting deaths of five people at a Halloween party hosted at an Airbnb rental house in Orinda, CA. CEO Brian Chesky announced on Twitter that starting November 2, Airbnb would ban “party houses” and redouble the company’s efforts to “combat unauthorized parties and get rid of abusive host and guest conduct.” twitter.com/bchesky The four-bedroom rental reportedly had been rented on Airbnb by a woman who advised the owner her family members had asthma and needed to escape smoke from a wildfire burning in Sonoma County about 60 miles north of Orinda earlier in the week. Nevertheless, the homeowner was suspicious of a one-night rental on Halloween and reminded the renter that no parties were allowed. Having received complaints from neighbors and witnessing some party activity via his camera doorbell, the homeowner called police who were en route to the home, but arrived after the shooting. The Halloween party apparently was advertised on social media as an “Airbnb Mansion Party,” with an admission fee of $10 per person. Independently owned vacation rentals are currently growing at a faster rate than hotels or motels, and in some instances are owned by out-of-state investors seeking not only a real estate return on investment, but also a return on investment associated with revenue streams generated by “pay to play” parties promoted on social media. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Paul may be contacted at ppaul@swlaw.com

    Governmental Immunity Waived for Independent Contractor - Lopez v. City of Grand Junction

    September 17, 2018 —
    On July 12, 2018, the Colorado Court of Appeals announced its decision in Lopez v. City of Grand Junction, 2018 WL 3384674 (Colo. App. 2018). The Court considered whether immunity is waived under Colorado’s Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”), pursuant to section C.R.S. § 24-10-106(1)(f), in situations where the public entity hired an independent contractor to perform the work. The Court held that if the public entity would have been liable under the CGIA for the conduct that caused the injury, had it performed the work itself, then it is liable for the work performed by its independent contractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins Hopkins McClain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com