BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut reconstruction 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


    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Road to Record $199 Million Award Began With Hunch on Guardrails

    Traub Lieberman Partner Stephen Straus Wins Spoliation Motion in Favor of Defendant

    Court Rules that Collapse Coverage for Damage Caused “Only By” Specified Perils Violates Efficient Proximate Cause Rule and is Unenforceable

    Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute

    Requesting an Allocation Between Covered and Non-Covered Damages? [Do] Think Twice, It’s [Not Always] All Right.

    California Supreme Court Clarifies Deadline to File Anti-SLAPP Motions in Light of Amended Pleadings

    Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes

    Hurricane Claim Cannot Survive Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    More Thoughts on “Green” (the Practice, not the Color) Building

    Remodel Leads to Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Problems with Common Law

    Co-Housing Startups Fly in the Face of Old-School NYC Housing Law

    Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage Where Ordinary Negligence is Inseparably Intertwined With Professional Service

    BWB&O Expands to North San Diego

    Class Actions Under California’s Right to Repair Act. Nope. Well . . . Nope.

    Environmental Roundup – May 2019

    Finalists in San Diego’s Moving Parklet Design Competition Announced

    The Ghosts of Tariffs Past May Help Us in the Future

    Illinois Supreme Court Announces Time Standards for Closing Out Cases

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

    Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    Final Rule Regarding Project Labor Agreement Requirements for Large-Scale Federal Construction Projects

    Lien Waivers Should Be Fair — And Efficient

    New Jersey Strengthens the Structural Integrity of Its Residential Builds

    Ensuring Arbitration in Construction Defect Claims

    Defects in Texas High School Stadium Angers Residents

    Energy Efficiency Ratings Aren’t Actually Predicting Energy Efficiency

    Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations

    “It Just Didn’t Add Up!”

    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    Wyoming Supreme Court Picks a Side After Reviewing the Sutton Rule

    Colorado’s Workers’ Compensation Act and the Construction Industry

    Concurrent Causation Doctrine Applies Where Natural and Man-made Perils Combine to Create Loss

    Did Deutsche Make a Deal with the Wrong Homeowner?

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Rich NYC Suburbs Fight Housing Plan They Say Will ‘Destroy’ Them

    AMLO Hits Back at Vulcan, Threatens to Use Environmental Decree

    Florida Court Gives Parties Assigned a Subrogation Claim a Math Lesson

    Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse

    Sellers' Alleged Misrepresentation Does Not Amount To An Occurrence

    Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

    Architectural Firm Disputes Claim of Fault

    But Wait There’s More: Preserving Claims on Commonwealth Projects

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    Towards Paperless Construction: PaperLight

    Quick Note: Independent Third-Party Spoliation Of Evidence Claim

    No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

    Become Familiar With Your CGL Policy Exclusions to Ensure You Are Covered: Wardcraft v. EMC.
    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

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured In Northern California Super Lawyers 2021!

    July 25, 2021 —
    Wilke Fleury is proud to announce that 15 of our astounding attorneys were featured in the Annual List of Top Attorneys in the 2021 Northern California Super Lawyers magazine. Super Lawyers rates attorneys in each state using a patented selection process; they also publish a yearly magazine issue that regularly produces award-winning features on selected attorneys. 1 of 15, Michael Polis, was also recognized on Page 9. Polis’ second job as a farmer was highlighted with a column and some neat photos. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP

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

    February 27, 2023 —
    Given the opposing experts' contradictory reports, the court denied both the insured and insurer's motions for summary judgment regarding coverage for a pipe leak. Pronti v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222306 (W.D. N. Y. Dec. 9, 2022). The insured had a swimming poll and spa, which functioned using a subsurface plumbing system, covered with concrete decking. A subsurface pipe began to leak, preventing the pool from properly functioning. The insureds gave notice under their homeowners' policy and contended that significant portions of the pool, spa, concrete decking and other landscaping had to be torn out to do repairs. The insurer retained an expert, Sarah G. Byer, a structural engineer, to investigate. The parties agreed that the pipe had a leak, but disputed if the location of the leak was specifically identified. The parties also disputed the cause of the leak. Byer found that the most likely cause was deterioration incurred over the pipe's lifetime based on the age of the plumbing system and Byer's personal observation of the pipe. Byer further stated that the physical qualities of flexible PVC piping made it susceptible to damage from chlorine and water over time. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    The Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight Back

    October 02, 2015 —
    “[I]t ain’t how hard you hit; it’s about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done. . . .” – Sylvester Stalone as Rocky Balboa in Rocky Balboa. Ding, ding. The Little Case That Roared Two years ago we wrote about a case that caused an uproar in the homebuilding industry – Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC, 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (2013) – in which the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District held for the first time that the Right to Repair Act does not provide the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims involving “actual,” as opposed to “economic,” damages in new residential housing. It was a blow to the homebuilding industry who back in 2002, following a wave of construction defect lawsuits involving new residential housing, lobbied the State Legislature for the Right to Repair Act which gave homebuilders an opportunity to repair defects before being sued in court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers Lists

    June 09, 2016 —
    NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – JUNE 6, 2016 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that three of the firm’s attorneys, Jennifer L. Ferrentino, Robyn E. Frick and Michael B. McClellan were selected to the Southern California Super Lawyers 2016 Rising Stars list for business litigation. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by Super Lawyers to receive this honor. The attorneys will be recognized in the July 2016 issues of Super Lawyers Magazine, Los Angeles Magazine and Orange Coast magazine. In addition, twelve of the firm’s Newport Beach attorneys were selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers list, an honor given to no more than five percent of the lawyers in California. Michael S. Cucchissi, Real Estate Mark S. Himmelstein, Construction Litigation Jane M. Samson, Real Estate Jeffrey M. Dennis, Construction Litigation Charles S. Krolikowski, Eminent Domain Robert K. Scott, Insurance Coverage Gregory L. Dillion, Business Litigation Thomas F. Newmeyer, Business Litigation Michael J. Studenka, Employee Litigation: Defense Joseph A. Ferrentino, Construction Litigation John A. O'Hara, Construction Litigation Carol S. Zaist, Business Litigation Making the list since it was originally published in 2004 is co-founding litigation partner Greg Dillion who was again selected to the Top 50: 2016 Orange County Super Lawyers List. In addition, Jennifer L. Ferrentino, Robyn E. Frick, Jane M. Samson and Carol S. Zaist were listed in the 2016 Top Women Attorneys in Southern California by Super Lawyers. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. The Rising Stars list is developed using the same selection process except a candidate must be either 40 years old and younger or in practice for 10 years or less. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    EPA Announces Decision to Retain Current Position on RCRA Regulation of Oil and Gas Production Wastes

    June 03, 2019 —
    After much study, EPA has decided against changing its current RCRA Subtitle D rules affecting the state regulation of oil and gas exploration & production waste. Since 1988, EPA has determined that most such wastes should be regulated as only non-hazardous wastes subject to RCRA Subtitle D, and not the more onerous hazardous waste provisions of RCRA Subtitle C. (See the Regulatory Determination of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Exploration, Development and Production Wastes, 53 FR 25,446 (July 6,1988).) As a result, under the Subtitle D rules, the primary regulators of such waste are state regulatory agencies, which follow the state plan non-hazardous waste guidelines developed by EPA. This regulatory disposition has proven to be fairly controversial, and it was recently challenged in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Environmental Integrity Project, et al. v. McCarthy. To settle this lawsuit, EPA and the plaintiffs entered into a consent decree by which EPA was to make certain determinations about the future of the program after conducting an appropriate study. That study, Management of Exploration, Development and Production Wastes: Factors Informing a Decision on the Need for Regulatory Action, has been completed, and it concludes, after a fairly comprehensive review of these state regulatory programs, that “revisions to the federal regulations for the management of E&P wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA (40 CFR Part 257) are not necessary at this time.” In a statement released on April 23, 2019, EPA accepted these findings and promised that it would continue to work with states and other stakeholders to identify areas for improvement and to address emerging issues to ensure that exploration, development and production wastes “continue to be managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Janus v. AFSCME

    July 18, 2018 —
    On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Janus v. AFSCME1. By a 5-4 vote, SCOTUS ruled that public employee unions cannot require non-members to pay union dues, even if those employees are benefiting from the services provided by the union. 28 states already had “right-to-work” laws on the books, meaning that unions in those states were already precluded from collecting fees from non-union members. This ruling makes that ban a national standard. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Foltz, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Foltz may be contacted at rfoltz@grsm.com

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”

    March 11, 2024 —
    Ursinus University in Pennsylvania – a “private, nonprofit liberal arts college” – funded a construction project for a new building utilizing monies loaned by the Montgomery County Health and Higher Education Authority, a public economic development authority “formed by the Board of County Commissioners… authorized to issue bonds relative to projects for eligible educational institution such as Ursinus.” Loans up to the amount of $23,000,000 became available to the University, and construction proceeded using the loans as construction funds. At issue: whether a project was to be considered publicly funded project such that prevailing wage rates were required to be paid. IBEW filed a related grievance with the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry’s Bureau of Labor Law Compliance, which was refused by the Bureau, on the basis that because work was “financed completely by loans from the Authority, which Ursinus was required to repay in their entirety, the Project was ultimately funded through private sources and exempt from coverage under the [Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act].” A grievance to the Prevailing Wage Appeals Board ensued, and the Board took a different position. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Florida’s Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting Appellate Court Decisions on Concurrent Causation

    December 21, 2016 —
    The Supreme Court of Florida kicked off December with an opinion that determined which theory of recovery applies when multiple perils combine to create a loss, and at least one of those perils is excluded by the terms of a policy. In Sebo v. American Home Assurance Company, Inc.,1 the court resolved the conflict between the Florida Appellate Courts for the Second District and the Third District and declared the concurrent cause doctrine (CCD) as the more applicable theory of recovery over the efficient proximate cause doctrine (EPC). The underlying dispute concerned damage to a home Sebo purchased in Naples, Florida in April 2005. The American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) insured the home under a manuscript policy specifically created for the property with limits of over eight million dollars. In May 2005, Sebo discovered major water leaks in the main foyer, master bathroom, exercise room, piano room, and living room of the home. In August, paint fell off the walls after it rained, and it became clear that the house suffered from major design and construction defects. When Hurricane Wilma struck in October, the house was further damaged by rain water and high winds, and was eventually demolished. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com