BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    The Roads to Justice: Building New Bridges

    Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions

    A Performance-Based Energy Code in Seattle: Will It Save Existing Buildings?

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    Lumber Drops to Nine-Month Low, Extending Retreat From Record

    Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Increase 0.8% in November

    The New York Lien Law - Top Ten Things You Ought to Know

    JD Supra’s 2017 Reader’s Choice Awards

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

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

    Chattanooga Bridge Collapse Likely Resulted From Impact

    Collapse Claim Dismissed

    Unpredictable Opinion Regarding Construction Lien (Reinstatement??)

    U.S. Tornadoes, Hail Cost Insurers $1 Billion in June

    Additional Insured Obligations and the Underlying Lawsuit

    Developer Transition - Maryland Condominiums

    Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”

    Court Addresses HOA Attempt to Restrict Short Term Rentals

    The NAR asks FAA to Amend their Drone Rules for Real Estate Use

    DOE Abruptly Cancels $13B Cleanup Award to BWXT-Fluor Team

    Construction Defect Lawsuit May Affect Home Financing

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    Nailing Social Media: The Key to Generating Leads for Construction Companies

    Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

    Federal Government Partial Shutdown – Picking Up the Pieces

    Colorado House Bill 17-1279 – A Misguided Attempt at Construction Defect Reform

    Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)

    Pancakes Decision Survives Challenge Before Hawaii Appellate Court

    New Stormwater Climate Change Tool

    Canada Cooler Housing Market Boosts Poloz’s Soft Landing

    Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

    Global Emissions From Buildings, Construction Climb to Record Levels

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Vik Nagpal, and Devin Gifford, and Associates Shelly Mosallaei and Melissa Youngpeter on Their Inclusion in 2024 Best Lawyers in America!

    The World’s Largest 3D-Printed Neighborhood Is Here

    Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

    California Supreme Court Declines to Create Exception to Privette Doctrine for “Known Hazards”

    Consultant Says It's Time to Overhaul Construction Defect Laws in Nevada

    Resolve to Say “No” This Year

    Basement Foundation Systems’ Getting an Overhaul

    The Court-Side Seat: FERC Reviews, Panda Power Plaints and Sovereign Immunity

    A New Lawsuit Might Change the Real Estate Industry Forever

    Montana Federal Court Holds that an Interior Department’s Federal Advisory Committee Was Improperly Reestablished

    Housing Starts Fall as U.S. Single-Family Projects Decline

    Mediation is (Almost) Always Worth a Shot

    Construction Companies Must Prepare for a Surge of Third-Party Contractors

    Don’t Conspire to Build a Home…Wait…What?

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

    Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled

    What Happens When a Secured Creditor Files a Late Claim in an Equity Receivership?
    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

    Deleted Emails Cost Company $3M in Sanctions

    January 13, 2017 —
    Recently, the Federal District Court for the District of Delaware imposed $3 million in punitive sanctions in order to redress harms caused by a company’s bad faith deletion of tens of thousands of emails during the course of litigation. The sanctions were ordered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which was amended effective December 1, 2015 to permit sanctions for the failure to preserve electronically stored information (“ESI”). In GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc.,1 the plaintiff, GN Netcom, brought an antitrust suit alleging that the defendant company, Plantronics, interfered with distributors to stop GN Netcom from marketing its product. Upon receipt of GN Netcom’s demand letter, Plantronics issued a litigation hold and began providing training sessions to its employees to ensure compliance. Upon filing of GN Netcom’s suit, Plantronics issued an updated litigation hold and continued training sessions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at gvh@sdvlaw.com

    Commercial Real Estate Brokerages in an Uncertain Russian Market

    March 28, 2022 —
    Several commercial real estate firms have joined the growing list of companies temporarily suspending – or outright terminating – property and facility management operations in Russia amid economic sanctions and mounting international pressure. CBRE is the latest to make such a move, discontinuing its Russian leasing, investment and property management operations and denouncing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in a statement issued March 7th. Other major players, including Savills, Knight Frank, and Colliers, have already suspended operations in the country, citing similar concern for international sanctions and the humanitarian impact of the invasion. Colliers is going even further to suspend operations in Belarus as well. Recently, global real estate service giant JLL switched course, issuing a formal statement that “with great sadness,” it will begin the process of separating from its domestic operations in Russia, though not commenting on whether the separation will be temporary or permanent. This is a significant change from just earlier this month , where, when asked about pulling operations from the country, JLL stated it would stay abreast of the situation abroad and continue to ensure the safety of its people and clients. Now that CBRE and Dallas-based JLL have joined the list, Houston-based powerhouse Hines appears to be continuing its “wait and see” approach. Hines currently owns Russian assets valued at $2.9 billion, nearly 2 percent of its entire $160 billion asset portfolio, and its property management portfolio manages more than 243 million square feet worldwide. While other firms have temporarily suspended current operations, Hines has gone so far as to say it will avoid servicing any future investments in the country, though it did similarly condemn Russia’s actions. With JLL’s recent decision , if Hines does take a stronger stance, it will likely happen soon. Reprinted courtesy of Cait Horner, Pillsbury and Adam J. Weaver, Pillsbury Ms. Horner may be contacted at cait.horner@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Great Fallacy: If Builders Would Just Build It Right There Would Be No Construction Defect Litigation

    January 21, 2015 —
    As the 2015 Colorado legislative session gets into full swing, there is a lot of anticipation and discussion regarding this year’s construction defect reform bill. It seems like every time a reporter broaches this issue in an article, there is a quote from a plaintiffs’ attorney stating that if builders would just build homes right, there would be no need for construction defect litigation. This is the sentiment expressed in the site www.BuildOurHomesRight.com. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the “construction defects” for which associations sue are those only that affect the performance of the homes, or are likely to affect the performance of the homes during the useful life of the component at issue. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case. Over the years, the plaintiffs’ bar has stacked the deck, so to speak, making actionable every technical building code violation, regardless of whether it has any impact, or will ever likely have any impact, on the performance of the homes involved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    A Property Tax Exemption, Misapplied, in Texas

    June 18, 2019 —
    In an important ruling for Texas businesses, the Texas Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the TCEQ misapplied the Texas property tax’s exemption for specified pollution control equipment. Since 1993, the Texas Constitution has included a provision which authorizes the Texas Legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation “all or part of real and personal property used … wholly or partly … for the control or reduction of air, water or land pollution.” This provision is implemented by Section 11.31 of the Texas Tax Code, which is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (See the rules at Title 30, Chapter 17 of the Texas Administrative Code.) If the Executive Director of the TCEQ determines that the equipment is used wholly or partly for pollution control, he issues a “positive use determination”; in the event it does not, the Executive Director issues a “negative use determination and rejects the application for the exemption. In 2007, Section 11.31 was amended at 11.31 (k) to list several items of equipment that are presumed to be pollution-control equipment, including “heat recovery steam generators” or HRSGs. This equipment is used by powerplants to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions that are the product of generation of electricity. Several applications were submitted to the TCEQ by the Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, seeking a tax exemption for its HRSG units. In July 2012, the TCEQ denied these applications, with the flat declaration that HRSGs are not pollution-control equipment—“they are used solely for production.” The Brazos Cooperative sued the Commission, and on May 3, 2019, in the case of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. TCEQ, the Texas Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion reversing the Commission, and the lower court (the Eight Court of Appeals, sitting in El Paso) that affirmed the Commission’s action. 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

    Hawaii Court Looks at Changes to Construction Defect Coverage after Changes in Law

    November 06, 2013 —
    A construction defect case lead at the U.S. District Court for Hawaii involved the insurer’s changed views on what was covered based on court decisions that came after the policy was written. John R. Casciano and Jessica L. Urban of Steptoe & Johnson LLP discuss the case on their firm’s website. They note that in Illinois National Insurance Company v. Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., Nordic built a retail building which soon afterwards had water leaks and property damage, due to alleged defects in the roof construction. Nordic had purchased comprehensive general liability and umbrella polices, with coverage that included property damage. Mr. Casciano and Ms. Urban note that “at the time of contracting, the Ninth Circuit had predicted that, ‘if the Hawaii Supreme Court examined the matter, it would rule that, for purposes of insurance coverage, construction defects were “not occurrences.”’” After the policy was written, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals did rule that “construction defect claims do not constitute an ‘occurrence’ under a CGL policy.” On the basis of this, Illinois National determined that they had no duty to defend or indemnify their client. Nordic made a claim of bad faith, but the court determined that “an insurer that denies coverage based on an open question of law does not act in bad faith, an insurer that actually relies on governing law, even if the insurer only belatedly learns of the law, cannot be said to thereby act in bad faith.” However, the court denied a summary judgment of Nordic’s claim of negligent misrepresentation, determining that there was “a question of fact as to whether the Policies covered [or were represented as covering] only damage to third parties caused by subcontractors’ defective work.” Finally, the court found that “a reasonable jury could infer that, at the time the Polices were issued, the insurers meant to cover claims arising out of the defective work” of Nordic’s subcontractors. They conclude that the Nordic decision “recognizes the varying consequences for coverage claims when post-contracting changes to the law may not coincide with the expectations of at least one of the parties at the time of contracting.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Matter Judged: Subrogating Insurers Should Beware of Prior Suits Involving the Insured

    March 25, 2024 —
    In New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Lallygone LLC, No. A-2607-22, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 120, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey (Appellate Division) considered whether New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (the carrier) could bring a subrogation action after its insured, Efmorfopo Panagiotou (the insured), litigated and tried claims related to the same underlying incident with the same defendant, Lallygone LLC (the defendant). The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s finding that the prior lawsuit extinguished the carrier’s claims. In Lallygone LLC, the insured hired the defendant to renovate a detached garage on his property. In March 2022, while the defendant’s employees were removing existing concrete slabs, the garage collapsed. After the incident, the insured stopped paying the defendant. In addition, the insured filed a claim with the carrier, which ultimately paid the insured over $180,000 for the damage under its property policy. The carrier sent a subrogation notice letter to the defendant. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Judge Nixes SC's $100M Claim Over MOX Construction Delays

    February 16, 2017 —
    A federal judge on Feb. 8 dismissed a claim by the state of South Carolina against the U.S. Dept. of Energy over delayed construction of the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, near Aiken, S.C. The claim for financial compensation was part of a lawsuit the state filed in February 2016 seeking payment of $1 million per day—or an annual maximum of $100 million—for the MOX facility not producing fuel by Jan. 1, 2016. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Road Project to Improve Access to Peru's Machu Picchu Site

    June 04, 2024 —
    Reaching the Incan citadel of Machu Picchu is historically famous for its difficulty. The site’s remote location was a factor in the Spanish conquistadors overlooking it as they swept Peru for its riches. Archaeologist and politician Hiram Bingham had been seeking another “lost” Incan city when he happened across it in 1911. Reprinted courtesy of C.J. Schexnayder, Engineering News-Record Mr. Schexnayder may be contacted at schexnayderc@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of