BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    Insurance Litigation Roundup: “Post No Bills!”

    Cal/OSHA’s Toolbox Has Significantly Expanded: A Look At Senate Bill 606

    SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection

    A New Statute of Limitations on Construction Claims by VA State Agencies?

    Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

    Construction Defect Class Action Lawsuit Alleges National Cover-up of Pipe Defects

    Construction in the Time of Coronavirus

    Construction Halted in Wisconsin Due to Alleged Bid Issues

    World Green Building Council Calls for Net-Zero Embodied Carbon in Buildings by 2050

    Commercial Real Estate in 2023: A Snapshot

    Construction Defects Up Price and Raise Conflict over Water Treatment Expansion

    The Reptile Theory in Practice

    Antitrust Walker Process Claims Not Covered Under Personal Injury Coverage for Malicious Prosecution

    Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses What It Means to “Reside” in Property for Purposes of Coverage

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

    Haight’s Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Southern California Rising Stars

    Green Investigations Are Here: U.S. Department of Justice Turns Towards Environmental Enforcement Actions, Deprioritizes Compliance Assistance

    Haight Proudly Supports JDC's 11th Annual Bike-A-Thon Benefitting Pro Bono Legal Services

    Judgment for Insured Upheld After Insurer Rejects Claim for Hurricane Damage

    Avoiding 'E-trouble' in Construction Litigation

    New OSHA Rule Creates Electronic Reporting Requirement

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    Drastic Rebuild Resurrects Graves' Landmark Portland Building

    Water Bond Would Authorize $7.5 Billion for California Water Supply Infrastructure Projects

    25 Years of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

    No Rest for the Weary: Project Completion Is the Beginning of Litigation

    Granting of Lodestar Multiplier in Coverage Case Affirmed

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

    Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

    Balestreri Potocki & Holmes Attorneys Named 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Star

    MetLife Takes Majority Stake in New San Francisco Office Tower

    Denver Airport Terminates P3 Contract For Main Terminal Renovation

    Why You May Not Want a Mandatory Mediation Clause in Your Construction Contract

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit with Additional Million

    Congratulations 2016 DE, NJ, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Wendel Rosen Attorneys Named as Fellows of the Construction Lawyers Society of America

    Mississippi Floods Prompt New Look at Controversial Dam Project

    A Homeowner’s Subsequent Action is Barred as a Matter of Law by way of a Prior “Right to Repair Act” Claim Resolved by Cash Settlement for Waiver of all Known or Unknown Claims

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds Lay Witness Can Provide Opinion Testimony on the Value of a Property If the Witness Had an Opportunity to Form a Reasoned Opinion

    JPMorgan Blamed for ‘Zombie’ Properties in Miami Lawsuit

    Bremer Whyte’s Newport Beach Team Prevails on a Motion for Summary Judgment in a Wrongful Death Case!

    Key Legal Considerations for Modular Construction Contracts

    Five LEED and Green Construction Trends to Watch in 2020

    A Guide to California’s Changes to Civil Discovery Rules

    Athens, Ohio, Sues to Recover Nearly $722,000 After Cyber Attack

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (05/18/22)

    Blue-Sky Floods Take a Rising Toll for Businesses

    Nine Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021

    Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien
    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

    Courts Will Not Second-Guess Public Entities When it Comes to Design Immunity

    May 13, 2024 —
    It was a bizarre confluence of events. Jorgen Stufkosky was driving on SR-154 in Santa Ynez, California. Martha Aguayo was driving on the same highway ahead of Stufkosky when she struck a deer causing it to fly across the centerline into traffic from the opposite direction. The deer struck a SUV causing its driver to lose control. The driver of the SUV crossed the same centerline where he collided head on with Stufkosky, killing him. Stufkosky’s children later sued the California Department of Transportation in the case Stufkosky v. California Department of Transportation, 97 Cal.App.5th 492 (2023), alleging that their father’s death was due to Caltrans’ negligent design of SR-153, inadequate number of deer crossing signs, and its high posted speed limit. While in the trial court, Caltrans filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Caltrans was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the so called “design immunity” statute. The trial court agreed and the Stufloskys appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Business Risk Exclusions Dismissed in Summary Judgment Motion

    November 09, 2020 —
    While the court denied summary judgment on whether the alleged damage was due to faulty workmanship and not covered, it granted summary judgment for dismissal of several business risk exclusions the insurer asserted against the developer. United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Dorn Homes, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138431 (D. Ariz. Aug. 4, 2020). Dorn, a residential home developer, developed a 350 single family residential home division. Dorn did not perform the actual construction, but contracted with various subcontractors. After completion, Dorn began to receive complaints from homeowners about interior damage to some of the homes. Inspections showed interior cracking, wall separation and foundation movement. Dorn ultimately installed an unvented foam insulated roof system to address these issues. Therefore, it did not repair the faulty workmanship of its subcontractors because it would not have been efficient or as effective. Dorn paid for the repairs to the 87 homes at issue. 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

    How I Prevailed on a Remote Jury Trial

    March 04, 2024 —
    Are you crazy? That is what I asked my client when he asked me to conduct a jury trial remotely. At the time, I did not even know if it was feasible. While I figured that most courtrooms had remote capabilities, I was not sure whether anyone was crazy enough to do a jury trial remotely and whether a courtroom would accommodate it. Would I be able to truly connect with the jurors? Would the jurors hold it against me that I am appearing remotely while they have to be there in person? I told my client that this was a terrible idea but that I would at least see if it was an option. At the Final Status Conference, the Court confirmed that it could accommodate a remote appearance for both the party and the party’s counsel and gave its permission to do so. It was also clear that I would be the only attorney exercising this option, and the judge remarked that this would be a first for him. Appearing remotely while other attorneys appear in person is not something I would normally consider. However, this case presented a unique set of circumstances. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Samuel Yu, Kahana Feld
    Ms. Yu may be contacted at syu@kahanafeld.com

    London Shard Developer Wins Approval for Tower Nearby

    November 05, 2014 —
    Sellar Property Group, developer of the Shard in London, won local government approval to build a 26-story residential tower close to the skyscraper on the south bank of the River Thames. The council for the Southwark borough voted in favor of the 148-apartment project, which also includes a 16-story tower, at a meeting yesterday, Sellar spokesman Baron Phillips said by e-mail. The project, like the Shard, will be developed in a partnership with the state of Qatar. Developers plan to construct more than 25,000 luxury properties in London worth more than 60 billion pounds ($96 billion) over the next decade, EC Harris said in an Oct. 7 report. The homes approved yesterday at the Fielden House site are expected to sell for about 800,000 pounds each, according to a filing by the borough. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Neil Callanan, Bloomberg
    Mr. Callanan may be contacted at ncallanan@bloomberg.net

    Students for Fair Admissions: Shaking the Foundations of EEOC Programs and M/WBE Requirements

    October 16, 2023 —
    On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, holding that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 143 S. Ct. 2141, 216 L. Ed. 2d 857 (2023). On July 13, 2023, thirteen state Attorney Generals, relying on Students for Fair Admissions, issued a joint letter to the CEOs of the Fortune 100 companies, urging the elimination of all race-based programs in EEOC and government and private contracting. On July 19, 2023, a Tennessee district court judge issued an injunctive order against the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) application program on the basis of the program’s race-based presumption of disadvantage. Ultima Servs. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. 220CV00041DCLCCRW, 2023 WL 4633481 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2023). The message to be taken from these developments: all race-based programs and, by extension, potentially all gender-based programs—including ones that require or reward participation of Minority Business Enterprises (“MBE”) or Women Business Enterprise (“WBE”) in construction programs—currently stand on shaky ground. This post will explain the constitutional foundations at play, the decisions shaking things up, and why well-rounded dialogue is urgently needed to address the status of these programs before they’re dead in the water. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Denise Farris Scrivener, Farris Legal Services LLC
    Ms. Scrivener may be contacted at denise@farrislegal.net

    Insolvency of Primary Carrier Does Not Invoke Excess Coverage

    January 06, 2016 —
    The insured failed to present any argument for excess coverage after the insolvency of the primary carrier. Canal Ins. Co. v. Montello, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20625 (10th Cir. Nov. 27, 2015). Montello distributed an oil drill containing asbestos between 1966 and 1985. Montello was sued by individuals claiming injuries due to exposure to the asbestos. Montello was insured by The Home Insurance Company from March 1975 to March 1984. In 2003, Home was declared insolvent. Home did not pay any claims for bodily injury on Montello's behalf. 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

    When Your “Private” Project Suddenly Turns into a “Public” Project. Hint: It Doesn’t Necessary Turn on Public Financing or Construction

    September 28, 2017 —
    In 1931, during the Great Depression, the federal government enacted the Davis-Bacon Act to help workers on federal construction projects. The Davis-Bacon Act, also known as the federal prevailing wage law, sets minimum wages that must be paid to workers on federal construction projects based on local “prevailing” wages. The law was designed to help curb the displacement of families by employers who were recruiting lower-wage workers from outside local areas. Many states, including California, adopted “Little Davis-Bacon” laws applying similar requirements on state and local construction projects. California’s current prevailing wage law requires that contractors on state and local public works projects pay their employees the general prevailing rate of per diem wages based on the classification or type of work performed by the employee in the locality where the project is located, as well as to hire apprentices enrolled in state-approved apprentice programs and to make monetary contributions for apprenticeship training. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California

    February 15, 2018 —
    If you are reading this blog, my guess is that you know what excavation is and why it is important to the construction process. However, what you may not know is the complicated California law that governs this process. The statute for an excavation contractor to be familiar with is California Government Code section 4216, et seq. However, like most things worth pursuing, that is easier said than done. Section 4216 contains several layers of prerequisites and requirements. This article will explore the notice requirement. Section 4216.1 requires “every operator of a subsurface installation” to share costs of a regional notification center. This is necessary because Section 4216.2(b) requires “an excavator planning to conduct an excavation shall notify the appropriate regional notification center of the excavator’s intent to excavate” before beginning that excavation. The statute lists two regional notification centers: the Underground Service Alert—Northern California and the Under Ground Service Alert—Southern California. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Peng, Gordon & Rees
    Mr. Peng may be contacted at mpeng@grsm.com