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


    Novation Agreements Under Federal Contracts

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    Elon Musk’s Proposed Vegas Strip Transit System Advanced by City Council Vote

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    Texas Supreme Court Authorizes Exception to the "Eight-Corners" Rule

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    Connecticut Supreme Court Further Refines Meaning of "Collapse"

    Be Careful with Good Faith Payments

    Court Exclaims “Enough!” To Homeowner Who Kept Raising Wrongful Foreclosure Claims

    BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

    New Hampshire’s Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property Does Not Apply to Product Manufacturers

    Depreciation of Labor in Calculating Actual Cash Value Against Public Policy

    Duty To Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part

    Landlords, Brace Yourselves: New Law Now Limits Your Rental Increases & Terminations

    More Construction Defects for San Francisco’s Eastern Bay Bridge Expansion

    Honoring Veterans Under Our Roof & Across the World

    Can an App Renovate a Neighborhood?

    Illinois Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Punitive Damages In Most Wrongful Death Actions

    Mortgage Whistleblower Stands Alone as U.S. Won’t Join Lawsuit

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Questions to Texas Supreme Court on Concurrent Causation Doctrine

    CGL Insurer’s Duty to Defend Insured During Pre-Suit 558 Process: Maybe?

    Greg Dillion & Newmeyer Dillion Named 2019 Good Scout Award Recipient

    Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute

    In a Win for Design Professionals, California Court of Appeals Holds That Relation-Back Doctrine Does Not Apply to Certificate of Merit Law

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/25/23) – Artificial Intelligence, Proptech Innovation, and Drone Adoption

    The Buck Stops Over There: Have Indemnitors Become the Insurers of First and Last Resort?

    A “Flood” of Uncertainty; Massachusetts SJC Finds Policy Term Ambiguous

    Defining Catastrophic Injury Claims

    Separation of Insureds Provision in CGL Policies

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Negligence and Private Nuisance

    Cold Stress Safety and Protection

    Requesting an Allocation Between Covered and Non-Covered Damages? [Do] Think Twice, It’s [Not Always] All Right.

    California’s Prompt Payment Laws: Just Because an Owner Has Changed Course Doesn’t Mean It’s Changed Course on Previous Payments

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold

    Blackstone to Buy Chicago’s Willis Tower for $1.3 Billion

    Stop Losing Proposal Competitions

    Message from the Chair: Kelsey Funes (Volume I)

    Discovery Requests in Bad Faith Litigation Considered by Court

    The One New Year’s Resolution You’ll Want to Keep if You’re Involved in Public Works Projects

    Issuing Judgment After Confirmation of Appraisal Award Overturned

    Noncumulation Clause Limits Coverage to One Occurrence

    Reminder About the Upcoming Mechanic’s Lien Form Change

    25 Years of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

    Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts

    Disputed Facts on Cause of Collapse Results in Denied Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Reject Collapse Coverage Denied

    N.J. Voters Approve $116 Million in School Construction

    Gene Witkin Celebrates First Anniversary as Member of Ross Hart’s Mediation Team

    Orange County Team Obtains Unanimous Defense Verdict in Case Involving Failed Real Estate Transaction

    Grenfell Fire Probe Faults Construction Industry Practices
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Damages in First Trial Establishing Liability of Tortfeasor Binding in Bad Faith Trial Against Insurer

    October 22, 2014 —
    The court considered whether, in a second trial for bad faith, the insured was required to again prove her damages, instead of relying on the jury's damage determination in the first trial where the tortfeasor's liability was established. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 2014 Fla. Ct. App. LEXIS 14362 (Fla. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2014). The insured was injured in a car accident caused by the negligence of the underinsured driver. Geico paid the insured the $10,000 policy limit under her policy. The insured's mother also had uninsured/underinsured coverage with Geico, with policy limits of $100,000. When the insured demanded the $100,000 policy limits from her mother's policy, Geico offered $1,000. Later, Geico offered $5,000, but returned to the $1,000 offer after the insured refused to settle. When the insured reduced her demand to $22,500, Geico did not respond. The insured sued and the case went to trial. The jury awarded $10,000 for past pain and suffering, and $350,000 for future pain and suffering. The verdict set the insured's total damages at $469,247. Geico did not file a motion for new trial nor did it appeal. Judgment was entered in favor of the insured, but was limited to the $100,000 UM policy limits. 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

    OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected

    July 19, 2017 —
    Governor Brown Signs Legislation Increasing Cal/OSHA Fines Cal/OSHA has increased its maximum fines for the first time in more than twenty years pursuant to legislation recently signed into law by Governor Brown. The changes nearly double the maximum fines and have brought California in line with the Federal standard. The increase in fines will not be isolated to this year, as fines will now be automatically increased annually based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Additionally, any employer who repeatedly violates any occupational safety or health standard, order, or special order, or Section 25910 of the Health and Safety Code, can no longer receive any adjustment of a penalty assessed based on the good faith or the history of previous violations. Such adjustments were previously commonplace.
      Specific increases are listed below (all increases refer to maximum fines, Cal/OSHA has discretion as to the amount of the fine when issuing the citation):
    • Section 6427 of the Labor Code was amended to increase fines, not of a serious nature, from $7,000 for each violation to $12,471 for each violation.
    • Section 6429 of the Labor Code has increased fines for repeat violations; raising the maximum fine from $70,000 to $124,709 for each violation. Additionally, Section 6429 also raised the minimum fine for repeat violations from $5,000 to $8,908.
    • Section 6431 raised fines for posting or recordkeeping violations from $7,000 to $12,471 per violation.
    Full text of the penalty section of the labor code may be found here California OSHA Emergency Action Plan elements revised; California now more consistent with Federal Standards Revisions to General Safety Orders section 3220(b) became effective on June 5, 2017 and contain two minor changes for California employers with regards to Emergency Action Plans (EAP). The first change requires that an employer’s EAP be more detailed in describing the type of evacuation that is to be performed, not just the route for an evacuation. The previous element of the EAP simply required that the plan contain, “[e]mergency escape procedures and emergency escape route assignments.” The current element of the EAP requires that, “[p]rocedures for emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route assignments,” be identified. The second change clarifies the language surrounding employees performing rescue or medical duties. Previously the only requirement in the EAP regarding rescue and medical duties was for employees that performed rescue and medical duties. The current version requires that the EAP contain, “[p]rocedures to be followed by employees performing rescue or medical duties. The use of the word and created potential gaps in plans as it is likely that employees may not be performing both rescue and medical duties, instead performing just rescue or medical duties. Plans must now include procedures to be followed by employees who perform either rescue or medical duties. It is recommended that your EAP be in writing and updated to comply with the revised General Safety Orders section 3220. The full text of General Safety Orders section 3320 can be seen here. Please contact us if you would like further details regarding your Emergency Action Plan. Deadline for Electronic Submission of OSHA 300 Log Records for Injuries and Illnesses Delayed On May 12, 2016, the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a rule entitled “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” which required certain employers subject to Federal OSHA regulations to submit the information from their completed 2016 Form 300A to OSHA via electronic submission no later than July 1, 2017. On June 28, 2017, OSHA, via a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, has proposed a December 1, 2017 deadline for the electronic reporting; the electronic reporting system is scheduled to be available on August 1, 2017. Per the California Department of Industrial Relations, California employers are not required to follow the new requirements and will not be required to do so until "substantially similar" regulations go through formal rulemaking, which would culminate in adoption by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations and approval by the Office of Administrative Law. Cal/OSHA drafted a proposed rulemaking package to conform to the revised federal OSHA regulations by amending the California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 14300.35, 14300.36, and 14300.41; these are currently under review with the State. It is currently unclear what, if any, impact the delay by OSHA will have on the proposed amendments to the California Code. We will keep you posted as to the changes in California recordkeeping requirements. Please contact Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer with any questions regarding Cal OSHA or your safety program. Dutch is located at Newmeyer & Dillion’s Newport Beach office and can be reached at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com or by calling 949.271.7208. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

    August 17, 2017 —
    Destructive testing is a routine investigatory procedure in construction defect disputes. The destructive testing is necessary to determine liability (causation), the extent of damage, and the repair protocol. Destructive testing is designed to answer numerous questions: Why did the building component fail? Was the building component constructed incorrectly? What is the magnitude of the damage caused by the failure? What specifically caused the damage? What is the most effective way to fix the failure and damage? There are different iterations to the same questions, but in many instances, destructive testing is necessary to answer these questions. Claimants sometimes prohibit destructive testing. Of course, destructive testing is intrusive. In many instances, it is very intrusive. But, this testing is a necessary evil. Without this testing, how can a defendant truly analyze their potential exposure and culpability? They need to be in a position to prepare a defense and figure out their liability. This does not mean destructive testing is warranted in every single construction defect dispute. That is not the case. However, to say it is never warranted is irrational. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

    End of an Era: Los Angeles County Superior Court Closes the Personal Injury Hub

    October 24, 2022 —
    On September 21, 2022, the Los Angeles County Superior Court announced that it would start a gradual shutdown of the Personal Injury Hub, currently located at the Spring Street Courthouse. This closure will see the return of personal injury cases being venued in the district where they occurred. The Personal Injury Hub was established in 2012 as a means of consolidating personal injury cases after several civil courtrooms around the County were closed due to significant budget cuts. It first began as two courtrooms in Stanley Mosk Superior Court, then moved to the Spring Street Courthouse and ballooned to six courtrooms, each handling a case load of reportedly over 9,000 cases at times. Case Management Conferences were abolished and the parties were largely left to their own devices to move cases along. At times, slow chaos ensued. With a new and increased budget, Los Angeles Superior Court has now decided that enough is enough. Effective October 10, 2022, new personal injury cases will be filed and handled from start to finish in independent calendar courtrooms in the districts where the events giving rise to the claims occurred. Any cases properly filed in the Central District will continue to be heard in the Personal Injury Hub for now. A new Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum that reflects this change will be available on the Los Angeles County Superior Court website for use as of October 10th. Reprinted courtesy of Elizabeth A. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Angela S. Haskins, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Evans may be contacted at eevans@hbblaw.com Ms. Haskins may be contacted at ahaskins@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Court Grants Insured's Motion to Dismiss Construction Defect Case and Awards Fees to Insured

    February 05, 2024 —
    The New York Supreme Court granted the insured's motion to dismiss the insurer's complaint seeking relief on its duty to indemnity and awarded fees to the insured. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Crystal Curtain Wall Sys. Corp., 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 22368 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 27, 2023). The case arose from a construction-related property damage action. Crystal entered a subcontract with the general contractor to design and install window and curtain systems in mixed residential and commercial buildings. When unit owners took possession, water infiltration during a rainstorm caused property damage and moldy conditions. The unit owners sued asserting claims against Crystal for the cost of repair or replacement of the allegedly defective curtain wall, damage to unit owners' personal property, diminution in value of the units, and delay damages consisting of increasing interest and carrying costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Insurer Doomed in Delaware by the Sutton Rule

    September 12, 2023 —
    In Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thangavel, No. 379, 2022, 2023 Del. LEXIS 227, the Supreme Court of Delaware (Supreme Court) considered whether the Sutton Rule prevented the plaintiff from pursuing subrogation against the defendants. As applied in Delaware, the Sutton Rule explains that landlords and tenants are co-insureds under the landlord’s fire insurance policy unless a tenant’s lease clearly expresses an intent to the contrary. If the Sutton Rule applies, the landlord’s insurer cannot pursue the tenant for the landlord’s damages by way of subrogation. Here, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the Sutton Rule applied because the lease did not clearly express an intent to hold the tenants liable for the landlord’s damages. In Thangavel, the plaintiff, Donegal Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), provided property insurance to Seaford Apartment Ventures, LLC (Landlord) for a residential property in Delaware. Sathiyaselvam Thangavel and Sasikala Muthusamy (Tenants) leased an apartment (the Premises) from Landlord and signed a lease. Insurer alleged that Tenants hit a sprinkler head while flying a drone inside the Premises which caused water to spray from the damaged sprinkler head, resulting in property damage to the Premises. Landlord filed an insurance claim with Insurer, who paid Landlord $77,704.06 to repair the damage. Insurer then sought to recover the repair costs from Tenants via subrogation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Katherine Dempsey, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Dempsey may be contacted at dempseyk@whiteandwilliams.com

    Housing Starts in U.S. Drop to Lowest Level in Three Months

    February 23, 2016 —
    New-home construction in the U.S. unexpectedly cooled in January, indicating there is a limit to how much gains in residential real estate will boost growth at the start of 2016. Housing starts dropped 3.8 percent to a 1.1 million annualized rate, the weakest in three months, from a 1.14 million pace the prior month, a Commerce Department report showed Wednesday in Washington. The median forecast of 76 economists surveyed by Bloomberg was 1.17 million. Permits, a proxy for future construction, were little changed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg

    A Proactive Approach to Construction Safety

    February 20, 2023 —
    The number of injuries and illnesses in the construction industry is trending downward, but companies need to continue making worker safety a priority – especially as they address the ongoing labor shortage. According to the most recent data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the incident rate of nonfatal injuries and illnesses in the construction industry was 2.5 per 100 full-time employees.1 The total number of cases of nonfatal injuries and illnesses in the industry was 174,100.2 These numbers are lower than the incident rates and total cases in 2019 and 2018.3, 4, 5, 6 Despite the declining trend of injuries, professionals at The Hartford believe construction firms need to keep worker safety at the forefront as they address the ongoing talent and labor shortage in construction. Companies are getting creative to find workers. From recruiting veterans to working closely with trade schools, construction firms are trying to find skilled laborers to meet project deadlines. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights