BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expert
    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


    Ohio “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    House Committee Kills Colorado's 2015 Attainable Housing Bill

    The International Codes Development Process is Changing to Continue Building Code Modernization

    Not so Fast – Florida’s Legislature Overrules Gindel’s Pre-Suit Notice/Tolling Decision Related to the Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Napa Quake, Flooding Cost $4 Billion in U.S. in August

    NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

    No Signature, No Problem: Texas Court Holds Contractual Subrogation Waiver Still Enforceable

    Coverage Issues: When You Need Your Own Lawyer in a Construction Defect Suit

    Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

    No Coverage Under Exclusions For Wind and Water Damage

    Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

    Three Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2024 NY Metro Super Lawyers Lists

    Determining Duty to Defend in Wisconsin Does Not Include Extrinsic Evidence

    Late Notice Bars Insured's Claim for Loss Caused by Hurricane

    Examining Construction Defect as Occurrence in Recent Case Law and Litigation

    Condo Association Settles with Pulte Homes over Construction Defect Claims

    Houston Office Secures Favorable Verdict in Trespass and Nuisance Case Involving Subcontractor’s Accidental Installation of Storm Sewer Pipe on Plaintiff’s Property

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Illinois Lawmakers Approve Carpenters Union's Legislation to Help Ensure Workers Are Paid What They're Owed

    Thanks for My 6th Year Running as a Construction Litigation Super Lawyer

    Stay of Coverage Case Appropriate While Court Determines Arbitrability of Dispute

    Ethical Limits on Preparing a Witness for Deposition or Trial

    Public Adjuster Cannot Serve As Disinterested Appraiser

    California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

    The Five-Step Protocol to Reopening a Business

    Failing to Release A Mechanics Lien Can Destroy Your Construction Business

    White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

    Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

    Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

    Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

    Because I Haven’t Mentioned Mediation Lately. . .

    Megaproject Savings Opportunities

    Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 2 – Procedural Due Process

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

    Affirmed

    Courthouse Reporter Series - How to Avoid Having Your COVID-19 Expert Stricken

    Plaintiffs’ Claims in Barry v. Weyerhaeuser Company are Likely to Proceed after Initial Hurdle

    Construction Defect or Just Punch List?

    Limitations: There is a Point of No Return

    Home Builders Wear Many Hats

    Tennessee Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    Contractor Disputes Report Amid Amazon Warehouse Collapse Lawsuit

    CSLB Releases New Forms and Announces New Fees!

    DE Confirms Robust D&O Protection Despite Company Demise

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

    Depreciating Labor Costs May be Factor in Actual Cash Value

    Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions – Changes and Claims

    Milwaukee's 25-Story Ascent Stacks Up as Tall Timber Role Model

    Congratulations to Las Vegas Team on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!

    Product Manufacturers Beware: You May Be Subject to Jurisdiction in Massachusetts
    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

    Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

    March 12, 2015 —
    Boxes, ladders, furniture or other objects commonly placed in aisles, walkways or paths may not be temporary obstructions and may be actionable under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) according to a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. DBA Pier 1 Imports #1132, No. 12-16857 (filed March 5, 2015). Many property and business owners have long operated under the assumption that they are not violating ADA regulations requiring minimum clear widths for accessible routes (“[t]he minimum clear width of an accessible route shall be 36 in[ches]” (28 C.F.R. pg. 36, app. A, § 4.3.3)) when they place objects that can easily be removed in aisles or pathways such as trash cans, ladders, plants, signs and the like because temporary obstructions are not considered violations of the ADA (28 C.F.R. § 36.211(b)). Reprinted courtesy of Max W. Gavron, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Keith M. Rozanski, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Gavron may be contacted at mgavron@hbblaw.com Mr. Rozanski may be contacted at krozanski@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wisconsin High Court Rejects Insurer’s Misuse of “Other Insurance” Provision

    March 04, 2019 —
    The Wisconsin Supreme Court held last week in Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co. that two insurers must contribute proportionally to the defense of an additional insured under their comprehensive liability policies. In 2008, torrential rainstorms battered the Milwaukee area for two days. The downpour overwhelmed the city’s sewer system, causing significant flooding in homes throughout the region. Out of those floods sprang several lawsuits against the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (“MMSD”) for negligent inspection, maintenance, repair, and operation of Milwaukee’s sewage system. MMSD was an additional insured under liability policies covering two other water service providers responsible for the city’s sewer systems. The first policy was issued by Greenwich Insurance Company for United Water Services Milwaukee, LLC, and the second was issued by Steadfast Insurance Company for Veolia Water Milwaukee, LLC. After learning of the lawsuits, MMSD tendered its defense of the sewage suits to both insurers. Steadfast accepted the defense; but Greenwich refused, claiming that its policy was excess to Steadfast’s based on an “other insurance” clause in Greenwich’s policy. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Costello may be contacted at dcostello@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Snooze You Lose? Enforcement of Notice and Timing Provisions

    November 11, 2024 —
    Deadlines are an inescapable part of the construction industry. Bid deadlines. Submittal deadlines. Material delivery deadlines. Substantial completion. Final completion. And so, inevitably, fighting about deadlines becomes a necessary byproduct. Was the deadline really a deadline? Was the schedule slippage on the critical path? Should there be an equitable extension to the date of substantial completion? Given the amount of attention and concern conferred on deadlines, those drafting construction contracts naturally seek to clarify which deadlines really matter with the inclusion of notice and timing provisions. A contract’s change order and claims procedures are often a key friction point for those drafting and administering the contract. Should there be a requirement for prior written notice of a claim for cost/time relief? How much advance notice? Who should the request be sent to? Is a specific form of notice required? What are the consequences of failing to provide timely notice? A practitioner should pay careful attention to negotiating these terms on the front end, because rest assured, these contract provisions will garner scrutiny when a change order dispute boils over. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cornelius F. "Lee" Banta, Jr., Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Banta may be contacted at lbanta@pecklaw.com

    Georgia House Bill Addresses Construction Statute of Repose

    May 04, 2020 —
    On March 2, 2020, by a unanimous vote, the House passed HB 968. This Bill seeks to clarify which civil actions are subject to Code Section 9-3-51, which is the eight-year statute of repose for deficiencies in connection with improvements to realty. If passed by the General Assembly, it would explicitly state that the statute of repose will not apply to breach of express warranties. If the Bill is passed, O.C.G.A § 9-3-51 would include a subsection that provides: “This Code section shall not apply to actions for breach of contract, including, but not limited to actions for breach of express contractual warranties.” Jason Gropper, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP Mr. Gropper may be contacted at Gropper@ahclaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

    February 14, 2013 —
    The U.S. District Court for Montana recently ruled on a case with underlying construction defect issues. Brian Margolies discussed Lukes v. Mid-Continent on the blog run by his firm, Traub Lieverman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP. In the construction defect case, the homeowner “alleged that the siding warped and pulled away from the house, which allowed for water intrusion and resulting exterior and interior damage.” Further, there were claims that “the insured or its subcontractor failed to install proper flashing, which also allowed for water intrusion.” The insured was Bernie Rubio, who had a general liability policy from Mid-Continent. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage, citing sections of the business risk exclusions. The court did not find the clauses ambiguous, but concluded that they didn’t apply to the facts of the case. While the court concluded that Mid-Continent had a duty to defend, they did not determine if there was a duty to indemnify. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Conflict of Interest Accusations may Spark Lawsuit Against City and City Manager

    February 07, 2014 —
    Casper, Wyoming Councilman Craig Hedquist—who is also owner of Hedquist Construction—has been “accused of violating state and local conflict-of-interest laws,” according to the Star-Tribune. In response, Hedquist “is threatening a lawsuit against City Manager John Patterson, the city of Casper and ‘possibly others,’ according to a letter obtained by the Star-Tribune.” The letter, which was sent to City Attorney William Luben by Hedquist attorney John Robinson, “demands the city preserve, from Aug. 1, 2012, on, all records of communication and consultation with attorneys and investigators, along with minutes, notes, recordings, executive sessions and digital data regarding Hedquist and Hedquist Construction.” City Manager John Patterson told the Star-Tribune that “he was unaware of the letter and didn't know what the lawsuit might be about.” Hedquist maintains that there was never a conflict of interest: “The general and expected practice for the Casper City Council members is to not vote on matters in which a council member may have a personal interest and record this recusal in the public record,” Hedquist said, as reported by the Star-Tribune. “I have done this on all contract matters regarding Hedquist Construction.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose

    December 29, 2020 —
    A recent decision by Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals in Puget Sound Energy, Inc v. Pilchuck Contractors, Inc.[1] demonstrates the broad application of the construction statute of repose to work performed by contractors. The construction statute of repose[2] bars certain legal claims based on construction activity if the alleged harm caused by the activity does not occur within a specific timeframe. The claims covered by the construction statute of repose include: all claims or causes of action of any kind against any person, arising from such person having constructed, altered, or repaired any improvement upon real property, or having performed or furnished any design, planning, surveying, architectural or construction or engineering services, or supervision or observation of construction, or administration of construction contracts for any construction, alteration or repair of any improvement upon real property.[3] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Schirmer may be contacted at jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com

    Small to Midsize Builders Making Profit on Overlooked Lots

    March 26, 2014 —
    Teresa Burney and John Caulfield writing in Big Builder discussed how many small to mid-size firms are making profits off of lots overlooked by the big building firms. They stated that “builders are scouring the country for land to meet the new housing demand, and they are having trouble finding good lots in the right place at the right price. This is particularly true for small to mid-size builders.” While the number of finished lots may be up, Burney and Caulfield declared that “the numbers are deceptive because roughly 25 percent of them are in what Metrostudy, BUILDER’s research company, describes as ‘D’ and ‘F’ locations—places so undesirable that nobody wants to live there.” Strategies that builders have tried with success, according to Big Builder, include looking for older communities that local builders have forgotten, or choosing a lot that needs more work than most builders would want to deal with. “We are kind of a savior for developers with troublesome leftover lots,” William H. Hoover, president of Texas-based Inland Homes, told Big Builder. “You have got some ugly lots, let us come and finish out your community.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of