BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofing
    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


    A Proactive Approach to Construction Safety

    Denver’s Proposed Solution to the Affordable Housing Crisis

    SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?

    Sierra Pacific v. Bradbury Goes Unchallenged: Colorado’s Six-Year Statute of Repose Begins When a Subcontractor’s Scope of Work Ends

    Legal Matters Escalate in Aspen Condo Case

    NEHRP Recommendations Likely To Improve Seismic Design

    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

    Colorado Senate Bill 15-177: This Year’s Attempt at Reasonable Construction Defect Reform

    Powering Goal Congruence in Construction Through Smart Contracts

    Happenings in and around the 2016 West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Building Growth Raises Safety Concerns

    San Francisco International Airport Reaches New Heights in Sustainable Project Delivery

    Meet Daniel Hall, Assistant Professor at TU Delft

    Colorado Senate Revives Construction Defects Reform Bill

    California Supreme Court Rights the “Occurrence” Ship: Unintended Harm Resulting from Intentional Conduct Triggers Coverage Under Liability Insurance Policy

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

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    Cliffhanger: $451M Upgrade for Treacherous Stretch of Highway 1 in British Columbia

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

    2016 Hawaii Legislature Enacts Five Insurance-Related Bills

    Blackouts Require a New Look at Backup Power

    Toll Brothers Climbs After Builder Reports Higher Sales

    Why 8 Out of 9 Californians Don't Buy Earthquake Insurance

    Four Dead After Crane Collapses at Google’s Seattle Campus

    Insurance Attorney Gary Barrera Joins Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group

    Insurance Client Alert: Denial of Summary Judgment Does Not Automatically Establish Duty to Defend

    Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

    NYC Developer Embraces Religion in Search for Condo Sites

    Measure Of Damages for Breach of Construction Contract

    The Texas Storm – Guidance for Contractors

    Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

    North Carolina Weakened Its Building Codes in 2013

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

    Project-Specific Policies and Products-Completed Operations Hazard Extensions

    Leaky Wells Spur Call for Stricter Rules on Gas Drilling

    School District Settles Over Defective Athletic Field

    Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Collapse Claim

    Thieves Stole Backhoe for Use in Bank Heist

    Defects, Delays and Change Orders

    California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

    Revisiting Termination For Convenience Clauses In Uncertain And Ever-Changing Economic Times

    Don’t Miss the 2015 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    What You Need to Know About Additional Insured Endorsements

    What to Do Before OSHA Comes Knocking

    Beyond Inverse Condemnation in Wildfire Litigation: An Oregon Jury Finds Utility Liable for Negligence, Trespass and Nuisance

    Termination for Convenience Clauses: Maybe More Than Just Convenience

    Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

    Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    The Value of Photographic Evidence in Construction Litigation

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurers May Suffer Consequences of Delayed Payment of Energy Company Property and Business Interruption Claims
    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

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Decrease on Fewer Investors

    September 24, 2014 —
    Purchases of previously owned U.S. homes unexpectedly declined in August for the first time in five months as investors retreated from the market. Existing home sales dropped 1.8 percent to a 5.05 million annual pace, from a revised 5.14 million pace in July, the National Association of Realtors reported today in Washington. The median forecast of 72 economists in a Bloomberg survey called for 5.2 million. The share of properties sold to investors was the lowest in almost five years. As wage gains are slow to materialize and credit conditions remain tight, it has been difficult for first-time homebuyers to enter the housing market to make up the decrease in investor activity. Employment growth and easier lending rules could help would-be buyers to feel more secure in taking the plunge into homeownership. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeanna Smialek, Bloomberg
    Ms. Smialek may be contacted at jsmialek1@bloomberg.net

    Construction Defects and Warranties in Maryland

    November 27, 2013 —
    Nicholas D. Cowie, a partner with Cowie & Mott, P.A., has started a blog focusing on construction defect claims in Maryland condominium complexes. In his first post, he writes about the statutory remedies in Maryland law for condominium owners. He notes that “four separate statutory warranties apply to the sale of condominiums.” He further discusses the varying duration of these warranties and when they come into effect, saying that “associations and unit owners are often incorrectly informed that their construction defect-related problems (such as leaks around windows) are ‘out of warranty’ because the problems did not occur during the warranty period.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How Many Homes have Energy-Efficient Appliances?

    October 08, 2014 —
    The National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing analyzed data from the Census Bureau’s 2011 American Housing Survey to “reveal the share of owner-occupied homes that contain various Energy Star related appliances.” Eye on Housing reported that in “new homes, the leading shares of Energy Star rated appliances were refrigerators (70%), washing machines (69%), dishwashers (65%), and central air conditioning (52%).” In “owner-occupied homes,” the survey demonstrated that “refrigerators are the most common Energy Star appliance.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Despite Increased Presence in Construction, Women Lack Size-Appropriate PPE

    September 26, 2022 —
    Fit. Functionality. Comfort. These are absolute musts for any employee wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) for work. Yet for many women in the workplace, finding PPE that fits well remains a challenge. In 2021, women comprised 11% of construction workers, 7.9% of truck drivers and 29% of manufacturing employees (Bureau of Labor Statistics), and their numbers in these fields continue to increase. Unfortunately, their options for proper-fitting PPE are not growing. "It's difficult to find PPE that fits women, because there is limited availability of these products, or suppliers do not offer them at all," says Brandy Bossle, owner and principal consultant at Triangle Safety Consulting LLC. "We really need suppliers to go out of their way to offer PPE that's cut for both men and women." Private fleet driver and Women in Trucking Image Team member Carol Nixon agrees, saying, "You can find men's hats, gloves, jackets and safety vests everywhere, but not with a female fit." Women can be shaped differently from head to toe—their faces, shoulders, waists, fingers and toes are often narrower, and they often have shorter torsos, among other differences. In order for PPE to fit many women comfortably and properly, these proportions need to be taken into account. In fact, OSHA states on its website that PPE used by women should be based on female body measurement data and that employers should offer PPE in sizes suitable for women. Reprinted courtesy of Robin Marth, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Ms. Marth may be contacted at media@jjkeller.com

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    March 01, 2017 —
    I know, you’re probably looking for a punchline, and likely thinking something along the lines of “only a construction attorney would be sitting in his office and come up with such an analogy,” but I really do think it’s a good one. When you are buying a car, you look for priorities. Is the color what you want? Is the motor a hybrid or a v-6? Does it have Android Auto? What is the fuel mileage? All of these things may be more or less important to you. If you can get your priorities for a price that is attractive, you will likely let some other less important items, e. g. trunk space or rear seat leg room, slide and purchase the car anyway. Furthermore, you may use these minor items as negotiating points to either get one of the priorities or a lower price. Of course the dealership will want to get its priorities, likely a sale and a profit, when negotiating and will have certain items that it won’t move on just as you have terms that you won’t move on. Much like when you walk onto the car lot, and particularly as a subcontractor looking at a contract from a general contractor, or a GC looking at the contract from the owner of a project, a construction contract presented to you is the starting point. When looking at the contract, be sure to have some non-negotiable items in mind when taking a critical eye to the terms of that contract. Some of these terms may be more or less negotiable depending on your experience with the other party to the construction contract. For instance, striking a pay if paid clause may be less important with a paying party with whom you have a 10 year history without payment problems. On the other hand, if it is your first contract with the other party, a stricter list may be required. So, much like a dealer that you know will stand behind its cars, you may be more willing to take more “risk” in entering a construction contract with a trusted/known owner or GC. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    What You Need to Know About “Ipso Facto” Clauses and Their Impact on Termination of a Contractor or Subcontractor in a Bankruptcy

    September 12, 2022 —
    While contractor bankruptcies have long been an issue in the construction industry, in the aftermath of COVID-19 and the resultant labor, material and supply-chain delays, contractor bankruptcies are of even greater concern. Many construction contracts attempt to protect the upstream party from a bankruptcy filing of its contractor or subcontractor by providing for an automatic right to terminate a contract, referred to as “ipso facto” clauses. However, such clauses are generally unenforceable as bankruptcy laws, specifically Section 365(e) of Title 11 of the United States Code, protect the party filing for bankruptcy (the “Debtor”) from unilateral termination of the contract by the non-Debtor party. What is an “Ipso Facto” clause? An ipso facto clause is a provision in an agreement which permits its termination by one party due to the bankruptcy, insolvency or financial condition of the other party. Reprinted courtesy of Martha B. Chovanes, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs) and Laurie A. Stanziale, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs) Ms. Chovanes may be contacted at mchovanes@foxrothschild.com Ms. Stanziale may be contacted at lstanziale@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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

    Providing Your Insurer Prompt Notice

    May 20, 2024 —
    Sometimes, when it comes to insurance, you may hear the argument that you breached your insurance policy by failing to provide your insurer with prompt notice as the insurance policy requires. Well, this is not such an absolute issue. With that said, you should absolutely provide your insurer with prompt notice of a claim or loss. No legitimate reason not to. But, if you don’t, it is not an absolute get out of jail free card for your insurer, but it does give them a good argument, which you don’t really want to deal with. In Gulfpoint Construction Co., Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2024 WL 1759228 (11th Cir. 2024), an insured appealed a trial court’s ruling that found it did not provide prompt notice to its property insurer as the policy required. In this case, notice was provided two years after a loss from a hurricane. The insurer denied coverage and, in doing so, relied on the insured’s failure to provide prompt notice. Although the trial court agreed, the appellate court found this was a genuine issue of material fact. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com