BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut eifs 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


    CGL Policies and the Professional Liabilities Exclusion

    Hydrogen Powers Its Way from Proof of Concept to Reality in Real Estate

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rise Most Since February 2006

    Illinois Court Determines Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    A Primer on Insurance for Construction Projects

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    Miller Act and “Public Work of the Federal Government”

    Fourth Circuit Questions EPA 2020 Clean Water Act 401 Certification Rule Tolling Prohibition

    Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

    Construction Law Breaking News: California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Beacon Residential Community Association

    Washington Trial Court Narrows Definition of First Party Claimant, Clarifies Available Causes of Action in Commercial Property Loss Context

    Athens, Ohio, Sues to Recover Nearly $722,000 After Cyber Attack

    Chambers USA 2021 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Federal Government May Go to Different Green Building Standard

    Las Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice Department

    Righting Past Wrongs Through Equitable Development

    California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

    The Biggest Thing Keeping Young Homebuyers out of the Market Isn't Student Debt

    Subcontractors Aren’t Helpless

    Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    Shea Homes CEO Receives Hearthstone Builder Humanitarian Award

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

    Independent Contractor v. Employee. The “ABC Test” Does Not Include a Threshold Hiring Entity Test

    Three White and Williams Lawyers Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

    Construction Contract Basics: Attorney Fee Provisions

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    Idaho Business Review Names VF Law Attorney Brittaney Bones Women of the Year Honoree

    Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations

    Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”

    Nancy Conrad to Serve as President of the Pennsylvania Bar Association

    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    There's No Such Thing as a Free House

    Prevailing Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Statutory Attorneys’ Fees Even if Defended by Principal

    Is the Construction Industry Actually a Technology Hotbed?

    The Privette Doctrine, the Hooker Exception, and an Attack at a Construction Site

    Blackstone Said in $1.7 Billion Deal to Buy Apartments

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    2018 Update to EPA’s “Superfund Task Force Report”

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Oregon Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Construction (Construction Defect) Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

    Notice of Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Deadline

    Beware: Hyper-Technical Labor Code Violations May Expose Employers to Significant Claims for Penalties under the Labor Code California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA)

    Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment

    Bel Air Mansion Construction Draws Community Backlash

    After 15 Years, Settlement Arrested at San Francisco's Millennium Tower

    Kahana Feld Partner Noelle Natoli Named President of Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles
    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

    Ill-fated Complaint Fails to State Claims Against Broker and FEMA

    September 10, 2014 —
    A complaint lodged against the insureds' broker and FEMA was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Lopez v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109803 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 2014). The insureds held a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) issued by FEMA, but sold by the broker. The insureds alleged that their property was totally destroyed by Hurricane Isaac. FEMA paid the insureds $234,513.02 for damage to their dwelling and $80,566.17 for its contents, for a total of $315,079.19. This was $34,920.81 below the policy limits. The insureds sued, claiming FEMA negligently miscalculated their damages, misvalued their property, and improperly adjusted their claim. The insureds also alleged that the broker failed to properly advise them regarding the nature of their coverage, the true value of their property, or to purchase the correct amount of insurance on their behalf. The negligent procurement claim against the broker failed because the insureds did not allege any specific facts tending to establish that the broker failed to use reasonable diligence in procuring their insurance. Likewise, the negligent misrepresentation claim against the broker was dismissed. Insurance agents had a duty to supply their customers with correct information, and they could be liable for negligent misrepresentation if they provided incorrect information and an insured was damaged. Here, the insureds did not allege a breach of the duty to supply correct information. 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

    Eleven WSHB Attorneys Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    September 01, 2016 —
    Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) announced that eleven of their lawyers were recognized on the list of 2016 Rising Stars®:
    • Raymond Babaian: Partner, Rancho Cucamonga
    • Emil Macasinag: Senior Counsel, Los Angeles
    • Amy Pennington: Partner, Los Angeles
    • Christopher Perez: Senior Counsel, Rancho Cucamonga
    • Keith Smith: Partner, Riverside
    • Kevin Gillispie: Partner, Concord
    • Alicia Kennon: Senior Counsel, Concord
    • Eugene Zinovyev: Senior Associate, Concord
    • Timothy Repass: Partner, Seattle and Portland
    • Jodi Mullis: Senior Associate, Phoenix
    • Vincent Beilman: Partner, Tampa and Miami
    • “We are pleased to have 11 of our best selected for this year’s lists,” Dan Berman, Firm Chairman and Founding Partner stated. “We value our selections to Rising Stars because the choices come from our peers. It is truly an honor and a validation of all of the great work we do at WSHB.” Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      Sixth Circuit Lifts Stay on OSHA’s COVID-19 Temporary Emergency Standards. Supreme Court to Review

      January 10, 2022 —
      As we round out the year, here’s a bit of news, with more likely to come, regarding the U.S. Department of Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) COVID-19 Temporary Emergency Standards (ETS). As we wrote earlier, on November 4, 2021, OSHA issued its ETS which applies to private employers with 100 or more employees (Covered Employers). Among other things, the ETS requires Covered Employers to have a COVID-19 vaccination policy requiring all employees to be fully vaccinated with certain exceptions, to provide for weekly testing of non-fully vaccinated employees, and to require face coverings. Under the ETS, Covered Employers were required to comply with the ETS other than the testing requirements by December 6, 2021 and to comply with the testing requirements beginning January 4, 2022. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
      Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

      The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

      October 28, 2015 —
      It's tempting to conclude from the climate change debate that all that carbon dioxide in the air is making everybody dumber. In fact, all that carbon dioxide in the air is making everybody dumber. Workers showed diminished cognitive functioning after spending several hours in office air that had normal levels of CO2 and chemical pollutants and ordinary ventilation, in a study published this week in Environmental Health Perspectives. Researchers tinkered with the levels of carbon dioxide and volatile organic compounds (airborne chemicals) and the amount of outside air pumped in, while the subjects did their regular work, though at a Syracuse University lab. The levels were chosen to simulate the indoor environment of conventional offices, LEED Platinum "green" buildings, and green buildings with an elevated outdoor ventilation rate ("Green+"). The 24 participants, including architects, engineers, and marketing professionals, were exposed to different conditions on different days during the six-day study, not knowing of the changes. At 3 pm every day, the researchers administered computer-based cognitive tests of strategy-setting and focus, for example, and recorded the results and the kind of air the participants had been breathing. A day spent in the air of an extra-ventilated green building correlated with the best performance on the tests. Participants performed 61 percent better in green-building air than in conventional air, and 101 percent higher in the Green+ scenario. The research was supported in part by a United Technologies gift to Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. United Technologies, which makes building systems, wasn't involved in the experiment itself. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Eric Roston, Bloomberg

      Woodbridge II and the Nuanced Meaning of “Adverse Use” in Hostile Property Rights Cases in Colorado

      November 23, 2020 —
      Earlier this year, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing at length “whether the requirement that the use be ‘adverse’ in the adverse possession context is coextensive with adverse use in the prescriptive easement context.” See Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lo Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2, cert. granted, No. 20SC292, 2020 WL 5405376 (Colo. Sept. 8, 2020). As detailed below, the Woodbridge II court concluded that the meanings of “adverse” in these two contexts are not coextensive—while “hostility” in the adverse possession context requires a claim of exclusive ownership of the property, a party claiming a prescriptive easement is only required to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Thus, the Woodbridge II court reasoned a claimants’ acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context. This significant ruling is at odds with a prior division’s broad statement, while considering a prescriptive easement claim, that “[i]n general, when an adverse occupier acknowledges or recognizes the title of the owner during the occupant’s claimed prescriptive period, the occupant interrupts the prescriptive use.” See Trask v. Nozisko, 134 P.3d 544, 553 (Colo. App. 2006). Perhaps for that reason, Woodbridge II is currently pending certiorari review before the Colorado Supreme Court in a case that should provide some much-needed clarity on what constitutes “adverse use” in the context of a prescriptive easement. As we await the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, I thought it worthwhile to provide a brief analysis of the Woodbridge II court’s deep dive into the nuances of “adverse use” in this field of Colorado law. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
      Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

      Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

      March 31, 2014 —
      In Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed the continuing validity of the longstanding statutory employer doctrine and related five-part test of McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co. In doing so, the court overruled the Superior Court and held that Worthington was immune from tort liability as the statutory employer of plaintiff Earl Patton. Worthington was the general contractor for a project to construct an addition to a church. Worthington subcontracted with Patton Construction, Inc. to perform carpentry work. Earl Patton was an employee and the sole owner of Patton Construction, Inc. He was injured in a scissor lift accident while performing work on the church. Patton sued Worthington alleging failure to maintain safe conditions at the worksite. After a trial, a jury awarded Patton and his wife a little more than $1.5 million in damages. Before trial, Worthington had moved for summary judgment arguing that it was Patton’s statutory employer and thus immune from tort liability under Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Under that law, general contractors are secondarily liable for payment of workers’ compensation benefits to employees of subcontractors. Like traditional employers, statutory employers are immune from tort liability for work-related injuries in situations where they are secondarily liable for workers’ compensation payments. Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Coburn, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Ms. Coburn may be contacted at coburnm@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      Consequential Damages Flowing from Construction Defect Not Covered Under Florida Law

      November 17, 2016 —
      Interpreting Florida law, the United States District Court found there was no duty to defend a contractor against construction defect claims. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Dimmucci Dev. Corp. of Ponce Inlet, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123678 (M.D. Fla. Sept 13, 2016). The insured built condominiums and townhomes. It held three successive CGL policies issued by Evanston. The "your work" exclusion in the policies barred coverage as follows:
      "Property Damage" to "your work" arising out of it or any part of it and included in the "products-completed operations hazard." This exclusion does not apply if the damaged work or the work out of which the damage arises was performed on your behalf by a subcontractor.
      The insured constructed the Towers Grande Condominium. In 2012 the Towers Grande Condominium Association, Inc. initiated the underlying action alleging that the insured's failure to construct the Towers Grande properly resulted in building defects and deficiencies. Damage to the roof, generator exhaust pipe, and HVAC system was alleged. Further, water intrusion and decking/structural issues were claimed. In addition to the construction defects, the Association also alleged that the insured's faulty work led to additional damages. 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

      The Contingency Fee Multiplier (For Insurance Coverage Disputes)

      September 10, 2018 —
      The contingency fee multiplier: a potential incentive for taking a case on contingency, such as an insurance coverage dispute, where the insured sues his/her/its insurer on a contingency fee basis. In a recent property insurance coverage dispute, Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. Agosta, 43 Fla.L.Weekly, D1934b (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), the trial court awarded the insured’s counsel a contingency fee multiplier of two times the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees. The insurer appealed. The Third District affirmed the contingency fee multiplier. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
      Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com