BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windows
    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 Condo Conundrum: 10 Reasons Why There's a 'For Sale' Shortage in Seattle

    No One to Go After for Construction Defects at Animal Shelter

    Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

    Texas Supreme Court: Breach of Contract Not Required to Prevail on Statutory Bad Faith Claim

    CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case

    Keeping Detailed Records: The Best Defense to Constructive Eviction

    Insurance Tips for Contractors

    Tenants Who Negligently Cause Fires in Florida Beware: You May Be Liable to the Landlord’s Insurer

    Insurer Prohibited from Bringing Separate Contribution Action in Subrogation to Rights of Suspended Insured

    Construction Employers Beware: New, Easier Union Representation Process

    Contractor Sentenced to Seven Years for Embezzling $3 Million

    Contractor Disputes Report Amid Amazon Warehouse Collapse Lawsuit

    Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect Case

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Falls to Lowest Since Early 1995

    What Construction Contractors Should Know About the California Government Claims Act

    Drill Rig Accident Kills Engineering Manager, Injures Operator in Philadelphia

    Ninth Circuit: Speculative Injuries Do Not Confer Article III Standing

    Useful Life: A Valuable Theory for Reducing Damages

    Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency

    No Duty to Defend Under Pollution Policy

    Freight Train Carrying Hot Asphalt, Molten Sulfur Plunges Into Yellowstone River as Bridge Fails

    WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals

    Conflicting Exclusions Result in Duty to Defend

    It’s Not What You Were Thinking!

    What Should Business Owners Do If a Customer Won’t Pay

    The Firm Hits the 9 Year Mark!

    Civil Engineers: Montana's Infrastructure Grade Declines to a 'C-'

    Certifying Claim Under Contract Disputes Act

    Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

    Want a Fair Chance at a Government Contract? Think Again

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

    What is a Personal Injury?

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    The Importance of a Notice of Completion to Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers

    Slip and Fall Claim from Standing Water in Parking Garage

    The Job is Substantially Complete, the Subcontract was Never Signed, the Subcontractor Wants to be Paid—Now What?

    Spotting Problem Projects

    Four Common Construction Contracts

    Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

    NARI Addresses Construction Defect Claim Issues for Remodeling Contractors

    How to Make the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive

    Labor Under the Miller Act And Estoppel of Statute of Limitations

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

    How Long does a Florida Condo Association Have to File a Construction Defect Claim?

    AEM Pursuing ISO Standard for Earthmoving Grade-Control Data

    EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

    Connecticut Federal District Court Again Finds "Collapse" Provisions Ambiguous

    Los Angeles Recovery Crews Begin to Mobilize as Wildfires Continue to Burn

    Sweat the Small Stuff – Don’t Overlook These Three (3) Clauses When Negotiating Your Construction Contract

    How VR and AR Will Help in Remote Expert Assistance
    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

    Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

    January 28, 2015 —
    In Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (No. C074546, filed 1/27/15), a California appeals court held that the use of a mailing address to send policies and renewals into California did not support jurisdiction for a California resident's bad faith lawsuit against a Michigan insurer over property coverage for a fire loss to a building in Arkansas. In Greenwell, the insured was a California resident engaged in real estate investment. He purchased an apartment building in Little Rock, Arkansas. Using the services of an insurance broker in Little Rock, he purchased a package of general liability and commercial property insurance for the building from Auto-Owners Insurance Company, a Michigan insurer not licensed in California. The policy listed the insured's business address in California, the policy was mailed there, and renewed three times via the insured's California address. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com, Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mitigating FCRA Risk Through Insurance

    November 30, 2020 —
    As reported in a recent Hunton Andrews Kurth client alert, Mitigating FCRA Risks in the COVID-19 World (Oct. 23, 2020), consumer litigation claims related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) doubled in the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic. After a slight decrease in FCRA filings due to court closures and other COVID-19 restrictions, claims will likely resume their previous upward trajectory. In fact, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has already seen an uptick in consumer complaints, many of which mention COVID-19 specific keywords. Given the anticipated rise in FCRA complaints, the alert highlights the need for financial institutions and financial services companies to develop FCRA-compliant policies and procedures, including training on those policies and procedures, to mitigate the risk of FCRA-related enforcement actions and litigation claims, particularly in light of the regulatory changes relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. Another important risk mitigation tool to consider is insurance, which can offer protection when even the most robust preventative measures fail to prevent an FCRA claim. Coverage for FCRA-related claims—often from directors’ and officers’ (D&O) or errors and omissions (E&O) policies—might be broader than one would initially expect. Policies may cover defense costs involving legal fees, as well as indemnification for damages. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matt Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    You're Doing Construction in Russia, Now What?

    May 16, 2022 —
    In recent weeks, there has been a long list of companies, from all industries spanning from construction/engineering to fashion and hospitality, that have announced that they are completely severing ties with Russia, while a host of others have announced a temporary halt. See Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, Over 400 Companies Have Withdrawn from Russia – But Some Remain, Yale School of Management (Updated Mar. 21, 2022), https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-400-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain?utm_campaign=mb. For those developers, EPC contractors, and design professionals (engineers and architects) who have construction projects in Russia, the question is, “How should we proceed?” The U.S. initially stated that it was not issuing a total embargo on business dealings and trade relations with Russia in response to the nation’s invasion of Ukraine. Instead, the U.S., along with many other Western nations, issued targeted sanctions. See Francesco Giumelli, Understanding Targeted U.N. Sanctions: An Empirical Analysis, International Affairs, 91(6), 1351-1368 (explaining the difference between embargoes and targeted sanctions). However, after evidence of war crimes by Russia emerged, President Biden issued an Executive Order prohibiting U.S. individuals, whether in the states or abroad, from new investments in Russia and prohibiting U.S. individuals from transactions with Russian state-owned entities. See April 6, 2022, Presidential Actions, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/04/06/prohibiting-new-investment-in-and-certain-services-to-the-russian-federation-in-response-to-continued-russian-federation-aggression/. This new Executive Order is said to not affect existing contracts in Russia, but instead prohibits new ones. Reprinted courtesy of Anazette Ray, Zetlin & De Chiara LLP and Michael Vardaro, Zetlin & De Chiara LLP Ms. Ray may be contacted at aray@zdlaw.com Mr. Vardaro may be contacted at mvardaro@zdlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    These Are the 13 Cities Where Millennials Can't Afford a Home

    June 10, 2015 —
    There's no place like home — except when you can't afford one. Millennials have been priced out of some of the biggest U.S. cities, with residential real estate prices rising even as wage growth remains elusive. Bloomberg used data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Zillow Group Inc. and Bankrate.com to quantify how much more money millennials would need to earn each year to afford a home in the largest U.S. cities. The good news is that out of 50 metropolitan areas, 37 are actually affordable for the typical 18-34 year-old (scroll down to the end of the story to see the full results). The bad news is that the areas that often most appeal to young adults are also the ones where homeownership is the most out of reach. Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg and Wei Lu, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Massive Danish Hospital Project Avoids Fire Protection Failures with Imerso Construction AI

    December 23, 2023 —
    Ensuring regulatory compliance of firewall constructions is getting a high-tech boost. Over the past 16 months, the construction team responsible for the iconic new Nyt Hospital Nordsjælland near Copenhagen used Imerso construction AI technology to achieve remarkable results. By using Imerso, the team enhanced work productivity while preventing costs and delays worth €5.2 million during the construction of the superstructure. Inspired by this success, the team led by Project Manager Anders Kaas has since been eager to explore the potential of the technology in other areas. The opportunity arose to address a topic that has traditionally posed significant challenges and expenses in numerous construction projects – ensuring regulatory compliance of fire barriers and firewall constructions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    After Restoring Power in North Carolina, Contractor Faces Many Claims

    August 10, 2017 —
    Having successfully helped to restore power to two North Carolina barrier islands, PCL Civil Constructors now faces the fallout from a July 27 construction incident that forced a week-long evacuation of 60,000 visitors, putting a potential multimillion-dollar dent in the region’s tourism-dependent economy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    A Court-Side Seat: NWP 12 and the Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Get Forced Vacations, while a Potential Violation of the Eighth Amendment Isn’t Going Anywhere

    August 10, 2020 —
    Here’s a report on several new decisions made over the past few days. U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Northern Plains Resources Council On July 8, 2020, the Court has issued a partial stay of the decision of the U.S. District Court for Montana, which had held that the nationwide use by the Corps of Engineers of its Nationwide Permit 12 to permit oil and gas pipelines must be vacated because the Corps, when it reissued these permits in 2012, failed to follow the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The breadth of this ruling seems to have surprised and alarmed many past and perspective permittees of the Corps. The stay will not apply to the ongoing Ninth Circuit litigation. FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL Vega, et al. v. Semple (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) On June 29, 2020, the court refused to dismiss a putative class action by past and present inmates of Connecticut’s Garner Correctional Institution who alleged that state correctional officials exposed them to excessive amounts of radon gas in violation of the Eighth Amendment. These officials are alleged to have been “deliberately indifferent” to inmate safety. A 1993 Supreme Court decision, Helling v. McKiney, clearly established the law in this area, and the Garner facility opened in 1992. The defense clams of limited immunity as to federal law violations were rejected. 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

    Connecticut District Court to Review Proposed Class Action in Defective Concrete Suit

    July 13, 2017 —
    Thousands of Connecticut homeowners have fallen victim to a defective concrete epidemic. Over the last thirty years, the foundation in many homes, particularly in the Northeast region of the state, was built with a concrete aggregate that contained the mineral pyrrhotite. When exposed to the elements, including water and air, pyrrhotite oxidizes, resulting in cracking and disintegration over time. For Connecticut homeowners, this has resulted in disaster, both financially and to the foundations of their homes. Previously, many homeowners insurance policies provided coverage for a “collapse” caused by the “use of defective material . . . in construction, remodeling or renovation.” As the pyrrhotite epidemic became more prevalent, insurers altered the coverage afforded for a “collapse” in several ways that potentially minimized or eliminated coverage for these types of claims. Primarily, coverage for a “collapse” is now restricted to collapses that are “abrupt,” and coverage is excluded for buildings in danger of falling down or those that are still standing, even if evidence of cracking or settling is demonstrated. The insurers did not notify homeowners of the change. Thus, homeowners who renewed policies were not informed of a coverage reduction nor were they provided with a corresponding reduction in the amount of premium. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com