BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management 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


    Miller Act Claim for Unsigned Change Orders

    Shea Homes CEO Receives Hearthstone Builder Humanitarian Award

    More Clear, But Not Yet Crystal: Virginia Amends its Prompt Payment Law and Legislation Banning “Pay-If-Paid Clauses in Construction Contracts Effective July 1, 2023

    The Basics of Subcontractor Defaults – Key Considerations

    Starting July 1, 2020 General Contractors are “Employers” for All Workers on Their Jobsite

    Perez Broke Records … But Should He Have Settled Earlier?

    Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

    Additional Insured Obligations and the Underlying Lawsuit

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 5% in Year to June

    Emerging Trends in Shortened Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose

    Labor Shortages In Construction

    Architectural Firm, Fired by School District, Launches Lawsuit

    Contractor’s Assignment of Construction Contract to Newly Formed Company Before Company Was Licensed, Not Subject to B&P 7031

    CGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property Damage

    ASCE Statement on Hurricane Milton and Environmental Threats

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 29 White and Williams Lawyers

    Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims

    Michael Baker Intl. Settles Federal Pay Bias Allegations

    Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies

    Pending Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Decline for Eighth Month

    Chutes and Ladders...and Contracts.

    Buy American Under President Trump: What to Know and Where We’re Heading

    Revolutionizing Buildings with Hybrid Energy Systems and Demand Response

    Maintenance Issues Ignite Arguments at Indiana School

    Preserving your Rights to Secure Payment on Construction Projects (with Examples)

    Bad Faith Claim for Inadequate Investigation Does Not Survive Summary Judgment

    Prevailing HOAs Not Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in Enforcement Actions Brought Under Davis-Stirling

    Congratulations to BWB&O for Ranking in The U.S. News – Best Lawyers ® as “Best Law Firms”!

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their Houston Office

    First Circuit Limits Insurers’ Right to Recoup Defense Costs or Settlement Payments

    Sanctions Award Against Pro Se Plaintiff Upheld

    More Charges Anticipated in Las Vegas HOA Scam

    Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Alleged Defective Water Pump Leads to 900K in Damages

    New Jersey Imposes New Apprenticeship Training Requirements

    Utilities’ Extreme Plan to Stop Wildfires: Shut Off the Power

    Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    Giant Gas Pipeline Owner, Contractor in $900M Payment Battle

    Zero-Net Energy Homes Costly Everywhere but at the Electric Meter

    PCL Sues Big Bank for $30M in Claimed NJ Mall Unpaid Work

    Rooftop Solar Leases Scaring Buyers When Homeowners Sell

    Mortgage Interest Rates Increase on Newly Built Homes

    California’s Labor Enforcement Task Force Continues to Set Fire to the Underground Economy

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    Tension Over Municipal Gas Bans Creates Uncertainty for Real Estate Developers

    Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit
    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. Drawing 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

    Contractor Changes Contract After Signed, Then Sues Older Woman for Breaking It

    September 03, 2015 —
    Channel 13 Who TV reported, in Winterset, Iowa, Mary Gregory allegedly signed an estimate for hail damage repair to her home, and was later told by the contractor that it was a contract. When a crew showed up to her home to perform the work, she turned them away. Then, Gregory received a letter from an attorney demanding eight thousand dollars for breach of contract. It turns out that the contractor altered the estimate Gregory signed and submitted it to the insurance company. According to Who TV, the altered estimate “contained work that Gregory says she didn’t authorize and a price tag of $32,134.” Jim Nelle, the contractor, admitted that he added to the contract after it was signed. He claims he was only trying to help her. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Breaking News: Connecticut Supreme Court Decides Significant Coverage Issues in R.T. Vanderbilt

    December 16, 2019 —
    On October 4, 2019 (almost two years after granting certification), the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s rulings on four key coverage issues in R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, et al. The coverage dispute in Vanderbilt concerns underlying actions alleging that talc and silica mined and sold by the insured contained asbestos and/or caused asbestos-related disease. The case has been proceeding in phases, two of which have been tried to date, resulting in the matter on appeal. (1) “Continuous Trigger” Theory of Coverage Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s opinion applying a “continuous trigger” for the underlying claims at issue, and agreed that the trial court properly excluded testimony from medical experts the insurers had proffered to prove that the asbestos disease process did not support a continuous trigger. (2) The “Unavailability of Insurance” Exception to Time-on-Risk Pro Rata Allocation Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s ruling that (a) damages and defense costs should not be allocated to any period in which insurance was “unavailable” in the market, (b) the insurers bear the burden of proving that coverage for asbestos liabilities was available to the policyholder after the date asbestos exclusions were added to the policies and (c) the insured bears the burden of proving that it was unable to obtain asbestos coverage prior to 1986 (when such insurance was generally available). The Appellate Court recognized that, in certain circumstances, there could be an “equitable exception” to the unavailability rule if the insured continued to manufacture products containing asbestos after 1986 with the knowledge that such products were hazardous and uninsurable (circumstances which the court found were not present in this case). Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and Ciaran B. Way, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    June 26, 2023 —
    BWB&O is excited to announce Partner Courtney Serrato and Associates Andrew Arakelian, Pamchal Deylami, and Brian Taylor have been selected in the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers list as Rising Stars for their work in Family Law and Civil Litigation. To read Super Lawyers’ digital publication, please click here. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The objective of Super Lawyers’ patented multiphase selection process is to create a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel. Please join us in congratulating Courtney, Andrew, Pamchal, and Brian on achieving this level of recognition! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Fall 2024 Legislative Update:

    October 28, 2024 —
    Review of (a) RCW 60.30.010-020, (b) RCW 49.17.530, (c) RCW 19.95.020, (d) RCW 39.116.005, et seq., (e) RCW 36.70B.080, and (f) RCW 39.12.010 and .13 While much of the focus on the recent legislative updates has been on RCW 39.04.360, a number of other legislative changes may also have significant impacts on Washington’s construction industry. Six of these changes are summarized below. A. RCW 60.30.010 and .020 (SSB 6108) – Concerning Retainage on Private Construction, Effective June 6, 2024 Last year, ESSB 5528 imposed restrictions and obligations related to retainage and timing of final payment on private (non-public works) projects. It capped retainage at 5%, required prompt payment on final payments, and required owners to accept a retainage bond on private construction projects, excluding single-family residential construction less than 12 units. This year, SSB 6108 adds suppliers to the statutes (RCW 60.30.010 and 0.020) pertaining to retainage on private construction projects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.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

    Elizabeth Lofts Condo Owners Settle with Plumbing Supplier

    January 28, 2014 —
    The owners of the Elizabeth Lofts condominiums in the Pearl District, Portland, Oregon have settled with Victaulic Co., the plumbing supplier who allegedly “sold failing parts,” reported The Oregonian. The case had been scheduled to go to trial this month. “Lawsuits filed by owners at the Avenue Lofts, the Benson Tower and The Edge Lofts are moving forward in federal courts.” The Elizabeth Lofts owners alleged “parts used in the buildings’ plumbing systems were disintegrating and causing water damage,” according to The Oregonian. The owners association had sought over three million in damages, though Phillip E. Joseph, Elizabeth Lofts owners’ attorney, said “he couldn’t disclose the terms” of the settlement. Victaulic’s attorney “declined to comment.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bad Faith Claim for Inadequate Investigation Does Not Survive Summary Judgment

    May 20, 2015 —
    The insured's claim for bad faith investigation regarding their hail damage claim did not survive the insurer's motion for summary judgment. Amarillo Hospitality Tenant, LLC v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56228 (N. D. Tex. April 29, 2015). A hailstorm caused damage to the Courtyard Marriot. The day after the storm, the insured inspected the roof of the hotel and observed damage to a sign and some aluminum vent tubes. No damage to the roof itself was observed. Subsequently, leaks were found on the tenth floor of the hotel. A public adjuster concluded that the roof had sustained damage during the hailstorm. The insured filed a claim with Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company. The insurer paid for the cost of repairing the damaged sign. To determine whether the damage to the roof was caused by the hailstorm, the insurer hired Donna Engineering, who conducted two inspections of the roof. Both inspections concluded that the hailstorm did not cause damage to the roof. Consequently, the claim was denied. 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

    De-escalating The Impact of Price Escalation

    August 10, 2021 —
    What happens when construction material prices abruptly rise by 15%, 35%, 50%? Moreover, what happens to a construction project when such volatility occurs? While there is no definite answer, delays in procuring such materials and associated cost overruns will likely impact the construction project. The last 15 months contractors have had to work through extraordinary construction material price increases, such as a 90% price increase for lumber from April 2020 to April 2021. While there is no statistic quantifying the impact these increases have had on the construction industry, the increases surely have had an influence, whether it has been through lost profits, delays, or damage to contractors’ otherwise strong reputation for timely performance. Considerations Prior To Contract Execution The first way to mitigate price escalation is identifying materials most susceptible to price volatility during the bidding process and then having an open discussion with upstream parties regarding the potential price volatility. Additionally, the bid may also include either (1) an allowance for the materials providing additional funds, if necessary, should the material price increase, or (2) a shortened timeframe in which the bid is open, which would lessen the time in which a price shift may occur. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian C. Padove, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP
    Mr. Padove may be contacted at bpadove@watttieder.com