BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut ada design 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


    Attorney Writing Series on Misconceptions over Construction Defects

    Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect Case

    Pine Island Bridge in Place as Florida Pushes Barrier Island Access in Ian's Wake

    Small to Midsize Builders Making Profit on Overlooked Lots

    SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    Surveys: Hundreds of Design Professionals See Big COVID-19 Business Impacts

    Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed

    Indemnity Clauses—What do they mean, and what should you be looking for?

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    Wine without Cheese? (Why a construction contract needs an order of precedence clause)(Law Note)

    Supreme Court’s New York Harbor Case Isn’t a ‘Sopranos’ Episode

    Proposed Florida Construction Defect Act

    Court Concludes That COVID-19 Losses Can Qualify as “Direct Physical Loss”

    3M PFAS Water Settlement Could Reach $12.5B

    Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

    A Survey of New Texas Environmental and Regulatory Laws Enacted in the 88th Session (Updated)

    The Jersey Shore gets Beach Prisms Designed to Reduce Erosion

    SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens

    Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts

    When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Cannot Assert Contribution Claims Against the Insured

    Golden Gate Bridge's $76 Million Suicide Nets Near Approval

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: RACHEL CLANCY

    Insured Entitled to Defense After Posting Medical Records Online

    Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

    NLRB Finalizes Rule for Construction Industry Unions to Obtain Majority Support Representational Status

    Do Change Orders Need to be in Writing and Other Things That Might Surprise You

    AB5 Construction Exemption - A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5's Three-Part Test

    MTA Implements Revised Contractors Debarment Regulations

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

    Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure

    Why Do Construction Companies Fail?

    Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers

    FEMA Offers Recovery Tips for California Wildfire Survivors

    Pay Loss Provision Does Not Preclude Assignment of Post-Loss Claim

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Questions to Texas Supreme Court on Concurrent Causation Doctrine

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Denial of Construction Defect Claim

    Harvey's Aftermath Will Rattle Construction Supply Chain, Economists Say

    One Word Makes All The Difference – The Distinction Between “Pay If Paid” and “Pay When Paid” Clauses

    New Mexico Adopts Right to Repair Act

    Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony

    Note on First-Party and Third-Party Spoliation of Evidence Claims

    Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

    Differences in Types of Damages Matter

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/30/24) – Life Science Construction to Increase, Overall Homeownership Is Majority Female, and Senators Urge Fed Chair to Lower Interest Rates

    SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives “Tier 1” Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Denial of Coverage Unsuccessful

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

    Michigan Lawmakers Pass $4.7B Infrastructure Spending Bill
    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

    25 Days After Explosion, Another Utility Shuts Off Gas in Boston Area

    October 30, 2018 —
    Three hundred thirty-nine homes in Woburn, Mass., were without power on Oct. 8 after National Grid shut off gas meters following the inadvertent over-pressurization of the natural gas line on Oct. 8, according to the Woburn Fire Dept. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Johanna Knapschaefer, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier

    November 06, 2013 —
    In the U.S. News & World Reports annual ranking of law firms, the construction litigation practice of Williams Mullen was included in the nationwide first-tier rankings. Additionally, their Hampton Roads, Virginia office was in the Metropolitan first-tier ranking for a variety of practices, including construction lititgation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision

    April 20, 2020 —
    In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court held that, when one primary policy exhausts in a continuing injury claim, the excess insurer sitting above that policy must drop down and provide coverage for the entire claim (up to its policy limits), even if primary policies in other years remain unexhausted. Montrose was sued for environmental contamination between 1947 and 1982. In many years, Montrose had primary insurance as well as multiple layers of excess coverage. Montrose’s excess insurers argued for a “horizontal exhaustion” rule, which would have required that all implicated primary policies exhaust before any excess insurers provide coverage. The California Supreme Court rejected the insurers’ arguments and found that Montrose was entitled to coverage from an excess insurer once the specific primary policy sitting below that insurer was exhausted. The Supreme Court also confirmed that, under California’s “all sums” rule, each excess insurer must provide coverage for the entire amount of the loss (up to its policy limits). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of J. Kelby Van Patten, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Van Patten may be contacted at kvp@paynefears.com

    Portion of Washington State’s Prevailing Wage Statute Struck Down … Again

    July 04, 2023 —
    In 2018, the Washington Legislature amended its prevailing wages statute adopting S.S.B 5493 and codified as RCW 39.12.015(3). RCW 39.12.015(3) changed how the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ industrial statistician set the prevailing wages for employees on public works projects, from a county-by-county basis to a “geographic jurisdiction” basis established in collective bargaining agreements (“CBA”) or if multiple CBAs, the CBA with the higher wage would prevail. This change proved problematic for contractors since it allowed a minority of employees to determine the prevailing wage through side agreements and limited meaningful wage negotiations by industry trade groups. Contrary to the previous rule wherein wages were set by the average or majority wage rate in a certain county (which was normally the collectively bargained wage) and provided some flexibility to the industrial statistician in determining the prevailing wage, now, RCW 39.12.015(3)(a) directs the industrial statistician to “establish the prevailing rate of wage by adopting the hourly wage … paid for the geographic jurisdiction established in [CBAs],” removing flexibility, and requiring the inclusion of CBA (which could encompass multiple counties) wage rates as a part of the prevailing wage formula. Reprinted courtesy of Brett Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight and Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com Mr. Fletcher may be contacted at mason.fletcher@acslawyers.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Orchestrating Bias: Arbitrator’s Undisclosed Membership in Philharmonic Group with Pauly Shore’s Attorney Not Grounds to Reverse Award in Real Estate Dispute

    June 21, 2017 —
    The California court of appeal recently issued an unpublished decision in Knispel v. Shore, 2017 WL 2492535, affirming a judgment confirming an arbitration award in a real estate dispute involving Pauly Shore. The court of appeal held that the arbitrator’s failure to disclose her membership in the Los Angeles Lawyers Philharmonic Group with the attorney representing Pauly was not grounds to overturn the judgment. The underlying arbitration involved a dispute between Michael Scott Shore, on the one hand, and his brother, Pauly, among others, on the other hand, regarding certain residential property located on Sunset Boulevard near The Comedy Store in West Hollywood (owned and operated by their mother, Mitzi Shore). The parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute before Judge Aviva K. Bobb (Ret.) of the Alternative Resolution Center. Judge Bobb issued an award in favor of Pauly, and he petitioned the trial court to affirm the award. Michael opposed, contending the arbitrator failed to disclose that she and Pauly’s attorney had both been members of the Lawyers Philharmonic, for which they had been practicing and performing together since November 2010. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
    Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com

    Earth Movement Exclusion Bars Coverage

    March 19, 2015 —
    Damage to the YMCA recreation center was not covered due to application of the earth movement exclusion. YMCA of Pueblo v. Secura Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15249 (D. Colo. Feb. 6, 2015). On October 11, 2013, the insureds discovered a leaking water line in the men's shower, where one of the shower's on/off valves had detached from the water pipe behind the wall. The leak was repaired the same day. On October 13, 2013, the pool deck near the therapy pool and surrounding block walls shifted and collapsed. The insurer admitted there was damage to the property. Several leaks were discovered in the pipes under and near the therapy pool, and the pool lost several inches of water. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties

    April 09, 2014 —
    Jonathan Massell of the firm Nexsen Pruet explained how a “recent holding by the North Carolina Court of Appeals is threatening to render many long-term express warranties ineffective,” in the online publication Lexology. In Christie v. Hartley Construction, Inc., “the court held that the six-year North Carolina statute of repose for improvements to real property trumps the bargained-for duration terms of an express warranty.” In the Christie case, this meant that even though the homeowners had a twenty year warranty, because of the statute of repose, the warranty effectively expired after six years. Massell stated to “be mindful of jurisdiction.” If the express warranty is in a state other than North Carolina, it’s possible that the claim could be filed in that state instead of North Carolina. For instance, according to Massell, South Carolina’s “statue of repose does not expire until eight years after the date of substantial completion for an improvement to real property.” Furthermore, “long-term warranties are not trumped by the South Carolina statute of repose.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

    March 04, 2019 —
    In a pair of recent asbestos coverage decisions, a Pennsylvania federal court issued rulings addressing expedited funding orders, number of “occurrences,” and the applicability of aggregate limits under the Fourth Circuit’s Wallace & Gale approach. Zurn Industries, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197481 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2018) Policyholder Zurn, a manufacturer and distributor of boilers, was named as a defendant in thousands of underlying asbestos-related bodily injury suits. After its primary insurers claimed exhaustion, Zurn moved on an expedited basis to require two of its excess insurers to each assume fifty percent of its defense and indemnity costs until they reached a permanent cost-sharing agreement. In denying Zurn’s expedited request for interim funding, the court held that the record was insufficient “in the opening stages of litigation, before discovery has occurred” to determine whether the underlying coverage had been properly exhausted but left the door open for Zurn to refile its motion on a more developed record. Reprinted courtesy of Craig O’Neill, White and Williams LLP and Laura Rossi, White and Williams LLP Mr. Levine may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of