BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    New Highway for Olympics Cuts off Village near Sochi, Russia

    17 Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Ranked In The 2019 Legal Elite Edition Of Nevada Business Magazine

    All Aboard! COVID-19 Securities Suit Sets Sail, Implicates D&O Insurance

    New Jersey Appellate Decision Reminds Bid Protestors to Take Caution When Determining Where to File an Action

    Construction Defect Lawsuits Hinted for Dublin, California

    Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

    Gru Was Wrong About the Money: Court Concludes that Lender Owes Contractor “Contractually, Factually and Practically”

    Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured Though Its Insured is a Non-Party

    Defect Claims Called “Witch Hunt”

    2023 Construction Outlook: Construction Starts Expected to Flatten

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    Second Circuit Clarifies What Must Be Alleged to Establish “Joint Employer” Liability in the Context of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims

    Insurance Alert: Insurer Delay Extends Time to Repair or Replace Damaged Property

    Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

    MSJ Granted Equates to a Huge Victory for BWB&O & City of Murrieta Fire Department!

    Damages to Property That is Not the Insured's Work Product Are Covered

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Technology and the Environment Lead Construction Trends That Will Continue Through 2019

    The Brooklyn Condominium That’s Reinventing Outdoor Common Space

    Agreement Authorizing Party’s Own Engineer to Determine Substantial Compliance Found Binding on Adverse Party

    After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

    Insured's Commercial Property Policy Deemed Excess Over Unobtained Flood Policy

    Heavy Rains Cause Flooding, Mudslides in Japan

    Rhode Island Sues 13 Industry Firms Over Flawed Interstate Bridge

    Endorsements Preclude Coverage for Alleged Faulty Workmanship

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails

    Third Circuit Court of Appeals Concludes “Soup to Nuts” Policy Does Not Include Faulty Workmanship Coverage

    Sellers' Alleged Misrepresentation Does Not Amount To An Occurrence

    Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Decrease on Fewer Investors

    Coverage Exists for Landlord as Additional Insured

    With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

    Gilbert’s Plan for Downtown Detroit Has No Room for Jail

    Summary Judgment Granted to Insurer for Hurricane Damage

    Be Careful When Walking Off of a Construction Project

    Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 1 – Substantive Due Process

    Philadelphia Proposed Best Value Procurement Bill

    Court Holds That One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims Under B&P Section 7031

    Alabama Supreme Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect to Contractor's own Product

    EEOC Suit Alleges Site Managers Bullied Black Workers on NY Project

    Third Circuit Follows Pennsylvania Law - Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship Does Not Arise from an Occurrence

    Empire State Building Owners Sue Photographer for Topless Photo Shoot

    Midview Board of Education Lawsuit Over Construction Defect Repairs

    “Families First Coronavirus Response Act”: Emergency Paid Leave for Construction Employers with Fewer Than 500 Employees

    FBI Makes Arrest Related to Saipan Casino Construction

    Drafting a Contractual Arbitration Provision

    Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

    Another Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

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

    New Certification Requirements for Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns and Service-Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business Concerns Seeking Public Procurement Contracts

    March 27, 2023 —
    Effective January 1, 2023, Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns (VOSBs) and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns (SDVOSBs) will be required to obtain Small Business Administration (SBA) certification to participate in any federal government agency VOSB or SDVOSB sole source or set-aside prime contracts. This change originated from a Final Rule (87 FR 73400) published by the SBA on November 29, 2022. As a result of this Final Rule, not only will VOSBs and SDVOSBs be required to re-visit, and in some cases re-apply for various certifications, but these new regulations will also impact joint ventures that rely on their member’s VOSB or SDVOSB status to bid public work. New Regulation Previously, a VOSB and SDVOSB could self-certify to perform set-aside and sole source projects on non-U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) procurements—a VOSB and SDVOSB only needed to be certified by the VA Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) when bidding on VA procurements contingent on its status. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Abby Bello Salinas, Law Clerk, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Investigation of Orange County Landslide

    June 02, 2016 —
    On May 29th, a landslide occurred in Newport Beach, California “about 100 yards below homes on Tidal Surf, Newport Beach Battalion Chief Justin Carr” according to the Orange County Register. Carr stated that the “slide measured about 150 yards wide and about 40 feet in length.” A building inspector and a geologist inspected the site to determine the danger, if any, to the homes in the neighborhood. The Orange County register reported that it has not been determined whether a recent earthquake in the area caused the landslide. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    November 18, 2011 —

    Exclusions barred the homeowners from recovering for losses caused by Chinese drywall in their home. Ross v. C. Adams Const. & Design, L.L.C., 2011 La. App. LEXIS 769 (La. Ct. App., released for publication Oct. 5, 2011).

    Two years after purchasing their home, the Rosses began experiencing chronic malfunctions in the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system. After discovering the presence of gypsum drywall, or "Chinese drywall", they submitted a claim to their insurer, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company, for damages caused by the Chinese drywall. Louisiana Citizens denied the claim.

    The Rosses sued. The trial court granted summary judgment to Louisiana Citizens based upon exclusions in the policy.

    On appeal, the appellate court first agreed the Rosses had sustained a direct physical loss. The inherent qualities of the Chinese drywall created a physical loss to the home and the drywall had to be removed and replaced.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

    February 22, 2021 —
    On January 29, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued new employer guidance on mitigating and preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace. This guidance is intended to help employers and workers outside the healthcare setting to identify risks of being exposed to and of contracting COVID-19 and to determine any appropriate control measures to implement. While this guidance is largely duplicative of prior OSHA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidance and recommendations, it contains a few new and updated recommendations that employers should note: Face Coverings OSHA recognizes that face coverings, either cloth face coverings or surgical masks, are simple barriers that help prevent the spread of COVID-19, and are beneficial for the wearer as well as others. OSHA recommends that employers should provide all workers with face coverings, unless their work task requires a respirator. These face coverings should be provided at no cost and should be made of at least two layers of tightly woven breathable fabric, and should not have exhalation valves or vents. Employers should also require any other individuals at the workplace (i.e., visitors, customers, non-employees) to wear a face covering unless they are under the age of 2 or are actively consuming food or beverages on site. Wearing a face covering does not eliminate the need for physical distancing of at least six feet apart. Employers must discuss the possibility of “reasonable accommodations” for any workers who are unable to wear or have difficulty wearing certain types of face coverings due to a disability. In workplaces with employees who are deaf or have hearing deficits, employers should consider acquiring masks with clear coverings over the mouth. Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hunton Partner Michael Levine Appointed to Law360’s 2024 Insurance Authority Property Editorial Advisory Board

    May 20, 2024 —
    Washington, DC-based partner Michael Levine has been recognized for his extensive experience and insights into emerging and legacy property and business interruption insurance coverage issues by being selected to Law360’s 2024 Editorial Advisory Board for Insurance Authority Property. As a member of the board, Mike will provide feedback on Law360’s coverage of property issues and expert insight on how best to shape future reporting of issues affecting businesses across all industry sectors. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth llp Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Heathrow Tempts Runway Opponents With $1,200 Christmas Sweetener

    December 15, 2016 —
    Heathrow Airport Ltd. will offer hundreds of homeowners a 1,000-pound ($1,200) festive sweetener to participate in environmental studies vital to expediting planning for its controversial 16 billion-pound third runway. The owners of houses and farmland on which the new landing strip is due to be built will qualify for the payment in return for agreeing to a handful of visits over about two years, Heathrow Chief Executive Officer John Holland-Kaye said in an interview. The surveys are required to establish the site’s wildlife value. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Jasper, Bloomberg

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    August 17, 2011 —

    Have you ever considered a “Safe Harbor Provision” for your Owner-Architect or Owner-Engineer contract? Maybe it is time that you do.

    As you are (probably too well) aware, on every construction project there are changes. Some of these are due to the owner’s change of heart, value engineering concerns, contractor failures, and material substitutions. Some may be because of a design error, omission, or drawing conflict. It happens.

    A “Safe Harbor Provision” is a provision that establishes an acceptable percentage of increased construction costs (that is, a percentage of the project’s contingency). The idea is that if the construction changes attributable to the designer is within this percentage, no claim will be made by the Owner for design defects.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.

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

    Why Federal and State Agencies are Considering Converting from a “Gallons Consumed” to a “Road Usage” Tax – And What are the Risks to the Consumer?

    August 26, 2015 —
    “‘We’re going to have to find another way to finance the upkeep of the roads,’ Gov. Jerry Brown said earlier this year in rolling out his 2015 budget. Governor Brown gave no specifics, but last fall he signed a law that set up a commission to study a ‘road usage charge’ with a call to ‘establish a pilot program by Jan. 1, 2017…'” – San Jose Mercury News, January 27, 2015 This Change, It’s a Coming (Maybe) Many states and the federal government are seriously considering converting from a “gallons consumed” tax levy to a “miles driven” program for determining gasoline tax. There are several compelling reasons for such a change. First, our roads are falling apart while revenue from current highway taxes fall woefully short of our current and projected needs. In the meantime, the number of miles driven by all-electric cars that pay no gas tax, is increasing rapidly; and by hybrids that pay substantially reduced tax; and worse for the taxing authorities, by increasingly efficient gas-powered cars. All of this means rapidly dropping gas tax revenues. Seeing this trend, local, state and the federal governments are making a major push to convert from a consumption based tax to a “miles driven” tax. This a good thing for those of us that believe increased investment in our transportation infrastructure is of high national concern. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com