BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    Performance Bond Surety Takeover – Using Terminated Contractor To Complete The Work

    Construction of New U.S. Homes Declines on Plunge in South

    Presidential Executive Order 14008: The Climate Crisis Order

    Are Mechanic’s Liens the Be All End All of Construction Collections?

    Affirmed

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2023 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    How Many Homes have Energy-Efficient Appliances?

    The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech

    Lewis Brisbois Appellate Team Scores Major Victory in Bad Faith Insurance Action

    Louisiana District Court Declines to Apply Total Pollution Exclusion

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Highlighted | 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    Ohio: Are Construction Defects Covered in Insurance Policies?

    It's a Wrap! Enforcing Online Agreements in Light of the CPRA

    San Francisco OKs Revamped Settling Millennium Tower Fix

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"

    Maine Case Demonstrates High Risk for Buying Home “As Is”

    Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers

    The G2G Year-End Roundup (2022)

    Finalists in San Diego’s Moving Parklet Design Competition Announced

    Daniel Ferhat Receives Two Awards for Service to the Legal Community

    Homebuilder Immunity Act Dies in Committee. What's Next?

    The Colorado Construction Defect Reform Act Explained

    The Business of Engineering: An Interview with Matthew Loos

    New York's De Blasio Unveils $41 Billion Plan for Affordable Housing

    New California Construction Laws for 2020

    Before Collapse, Communications Failed to Save Bridge Project

    Homebuyers Aren't Sweating the Fed

    Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Jones Provides Testimony Before Florida Senate Committees

    Extreme Heat, Smoke Should Get US Disaster Label, Groups Say

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    Construction is the Fastest Growing Industry in California

    Investigation of Orange County Landslide

    PAGA Right of Action Not Applicable to Construction Workers Under Collective Bargaining Agreement

    Courts Generally Favor the Enforcement of Arbitration Provisions

    Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy: Colorado Court of Appeals Expressly Affirms the Continuing Viability of the Common-Law After-Acquired Title Doctrine and Expressly Recognizes Utility Easements by Necessity

    Insurer Must Defend General Contractor

    Michigan Finds Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Work

    Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

    First Circuit: No Coverage, No Duty to Investigate Alleged Loss Prior to Policy Period

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: The Duty to Defend

    Failure to Comply with Sprinkler Endorsement Bars Coverage for Fire Damage

    Are Modern Buildings Silently Killing Us?

    Blackouts Require a New Look at Backup Power

    Fine Art Losses – “Canvas” the Subrogation Landscape

    Claims against Broker for Insufficient Coverage Fail

    “Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle and Justyn Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment

    Microwave Transmission of Space-Based Solar Power: The Focus of New Attention

    Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Common Flood Insurance Myths and how Agents can Debunk Them
    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

    Construction Defect Leads to Death, Jury Awards $39 Million

    November 27, 2013 —
    A failure in the installation of a 13-ton concrete panel in Milwaukee County lead to the death of a 15-year-old boy in 201; two others were also injured. A lawsuit over this has concluded with the contractor, Advance Cast Stone, found culpable due to their concealing that the panel was not installed as prescribed. The incident happened at a parking garage operated by the county. Advanced Cast Stone made the claim that the method they used to secure the panel had been approved by other in the project. The jury awarded $6.3 million to the estate of Jared Kellner, $1.5 million each to the young man who was injured, Eric Wosniki, and his parents. The county was also awarded $6 million for lost revenue in the parking garage and for repairs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    In Pennsylvania, Contractors Can Be Liable to Third Parties for Obvious Defects in Completed Work

    July 10, 2023 —
    In Brown v. City of Oil City, No. 6 WAP 2022, 2023 Pa. LEXIS 681 (2023), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Supreme Court) recently held that a contractor can be liable for dangerous conditions it creates even if the hazard is obvious or known by the property owner. In City of Oil City, the City of Oil City (Oil City) contracted with Harold Best and Struxures, LLC and Fred Burns, Inc. (collectively Contractors) to reconstruct the concrete stairs to the city library. Contractors completed their work at the end of 2011. In early 2012, Oil City received reports of issues with the stairs. Oil City notified Contractors that it considered the stairs dangerous and that Contractors’ defective workmanship created the condition. Neither Oil City or Contractors took any action to fix the stairs or warn of the danger and the stairs’ condition worsened with time. On November 23, 2015, David and Kathryn Brown exited the library. Kathryn Brown tripped on one of the deteriorated steps, falling and striking her head. Kathryn suffered a traumatic head injury and passed away six days later. The Estate of Kathryn Brown and David Brown, individually (collectively, the Browns), sued Oil City as the owner of the library and Contractors. With respect to Contractors, the Browns asserted that Contractors’ work on the stairs created a dangerous condition that presented an unreasonable risk of harm to those using the steps. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams
    Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

    ¡AI Caramba!

    January 07, 2025 —
    You can’t make this up. That’s what a federal judge in Texas told an attorney whom it was sanctioning for impermissible reliance on artificial intelligence in preparing a brief to the court. “Pending before the court is the question of whether Plaintiff's counsel… should be sanctioned for submitting a response brief to the court that includes case cites generated by artificial intelligence that refer to nonexistent cases as well as to nonexistent quotations.” Counsel for the defendant in the case – pursuing summary judgment for a tire manufacturer in a wrongful termination lawsuit – pointed up in a reply brief that the opposition brief of the plaintiff cited two purported – and as it turned out, nonexistent – unpublished decisions: Roca v. King's Creek Plantation, LLC, 500 F. App'x 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2012) and Beets v. Texas Instruments, Inc., No. 94-10034, 1994 WL 714026, at *3 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 1994), and quotations from as many as six other apparently-existing cases but which were unable to be found within the reported decisions. 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

    Recycling Our Cities, One Building at a Time

    December 13, 2022 —
    Takumi Osawa kneels on the narrow balcony of a wooden house outside Tokyo and describes how, 140 years ago, workers would have hoisted baskets of mulberry leaves to the second floor to feed silkworms. When they ate, it sounded like rain.  Known in Japan as minka, these locally crafted structures with characteristic pitched roofs were built for hundreds of years to accommodate farmers, artisans and merchants. This one was originally constructed in 1879 and housed a family on the first floor who tended silkworms on the second and third. Minka are typically designed like an interlocking puzzle, without nails or screws, which allowed Osawa and a team of craftsmen to take the building apart, move it about 90 kilometers (56 miles) east and reassemble it closer to Tokyo, where a couple now live in it. The number of empty homes in Japan is rising as the population shrinks and younger generations gravitate toward the city. Government data suggests as many as 8 million houses, many built during a post-World War II construction boom that lasted into the 1980s, now lie unoccupied. Reprinted courtesy of Aaron Clark, Bloomberg and Erica Yokoyama, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Massachusetts Clarifies When the Statute of Repose is Triggered For a Multi-Phase or Multi-Building Project

    December 07, 2020 —
    Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC (“Lennar”) built a twenty-eight-building, 150-unit condominium project containing twenty-four discrete phases over a seven-year span. The condominium association subsequently brought an action against Lennar and others alleging design and construction defects to four main components of the common elements: “decks and columns,” “roofing/flashing,” “exterior walls/flashing/building envelope,” and “irrigation system.” In response, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s claims with respect to six of the twenty- eight buildings were barred by Massachusetts’s six-year statute of repose, G. L. c. 206 § 2B. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts previously held that all twenty-eight of the condominium’s buildings should be treated as a single improvement for purposes of application of the statute of repose. Subsequently, the court certified the following question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Where the factual record supports the conclusion that a builder or developer was engaged in the continuous construction of a single condominium development comprising multiple buildings or phases, when does the six-year period for an action of tort relating to the construction of the condominium’s common or limited common elements start running? Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Court-Side Seat: An End-of-Year Environmental Update

    January 09, 2023 —
    As 2022 draws to a close, here is a brief description of recent environmental and regulatory law rulings, as well as new federal rulemaking proceedings. United States Tax Court
    Green Valley Investors, LLC et al, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue On November 9, 2022, the Tax Court agreed with the taxpayers that the IRS’s use of administrative Notice 2017-10 to impose substantial tax liabilities violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The notice was the agency’s response to a provision in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 which increased the penalties for engaging in a reportable transaction understatement. Here, at issue was the value of charitable deductions generated by the creation of environmental easements made in connection with land transactions. These claimed deductions amounted to more than $60 million. The petitioners argued that IRS Notice 2017-10, which authorized such large penalties, was in fact a “legislative rule” whose promulgation should have complied with the notice and comment requirements of the APA. The agency contended that the Congress, by implication, absolved the IRS from the notice and comment requirements. The court agreed with the petitioners and set aside Notice 2017-10 and the imposition of penalties under Section 6662A of the Jobs Creation Act. On December 8, 2022, the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would correct the APA deficiencies noted by the courts. (See 87 FR 75185.)
    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

    A Classic Blunder: Practical Advice for Avoiding Two-Front Wars

    August 23, 2021 —
    “Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders – the most famous of which is ‘never get involved in a land war in Asia’ – but only slightly less well-known is this: ‘Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.’”[1] Vizzini forgot to include “never fight a two-front war with your owner and a subcontractor” on his list of classic blunders, but it certainly belongs there. This article examines practical tips and tricks for general contractors to avoid the classic blunder of a two-front war, including recommended contract provisions and sound project documentation practices. Admittedly, general contractors face a wide array of obligations on a project. And perhaps one of the most delicate balancing acts is managing relationships with the owner and your subcontractors. But far too often general contractors find themselves in the difficult position of fighting a two-front war against one (or more) of their subcontractors and the project owner. But this does not always have to be the case—there are ways for general contractors to reduce the risk of finding themselves in a two-front war. And every project does not have to devolve in a circular firing squad with you in the middle. That said, this article comes with the caveat that a general contractor cannot avoid a two-front war in every instance, nor does this article examine every imaginable way to reduce the risk of a two-front war (see e.g. https://www.consensusdocs.org/pass-through-subcontractor-claims-liquidating-agreements-and-avoiding-a-two-front-war/). But this article will provide an overview of several key tools that can be used to minimize the risk of falling into a classic blunder. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William Underwood, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

    Appeals Court Explains Punitive Damages Awards For Extreme Reprehensibility Or Unusually Small, Hard-To-Detect Or Hard-To-Measure Compensatory Damages

    November 10, 2016 —
    In Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. (No. B234271A, filed 11/3/16), (“Nickerson II”) a California appeals court outlined the requirements for complying with the single-digit multiplier annunciated as a Constitutional limitation on punitive damages by the United States Supreme Court in State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408, for awards of punitive damages against insurers in cases of extreme reprehensibility or unusually small, hard-to-detect or hard-to-measure compensatory damages. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of