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


    Are You Taking Full Advantage of Available Reimbursements for Assisting Injured Workers?

    OSHA Announces Expansion of “Severe Violator Enforcement Program”

    Zell Says Homeownership Rate to Fall as Marriages Delayed

    Party Loses Additional Insured Argument by Improper Pleading

    When Is Mandatory Arbitration Not Mandatory?

    Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings

    The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals

    Appeals Court Affirms Civil Engineer Owes No Duty of Care to General Contractor

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    Latosha Ellis Selected for 2019 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Pathfinder Program

    The Future of Construction Work with Mark Ehrlich

    Suzanne Pollack Elected to Lawyers Club of San Diego 2021 Board of Directors

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    Philadelphia Voters to Consider Best Value Bid Procurment

    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

    Undocumented Debris at Mississippi Port Sparks Legal Battle

    Seattle’s Tallest Tower Said Readying to Go On the Market

    Progress, Property, and Privacy: Discussing Human-Led Infrastructure with Jeff Schumacher

    Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 – Expert Testimony

    Workers Compensation Immunity and the Intentional Tort Exception

    Contractor Prevails in Part Against CalOSHA in Valley Fever Case

    Here's Proof Homebuilders are Betting on a Pickup in the Housing Market

    Late Notice Kills Insured's Claim for Damage Due to Hurricane

    Blackouts Require a New Look at Backup Power

    Depreciating Labor Costs May be Factor in Actual Cash Value

    MDL for Claims Against Manufacturers and Distributors of PFAS-Containing AFFFs Focuses Attention on Key Issues

    BHA has a Nice Swing Benefits the Wounded Warrior Project

    Lewis Brisbois Listed as Top 10 Firm of 2022 on Leopard Solutions Law Firm Index

    Insurer's Denial of Coverage to Additional Insured Constitutes Bad Faith

    Agree to Use your “Professional Best"? You may Lose Insurance Coverage! (Law Note)

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    The Architecture of Tomorrow Mimics Nature to Cool the Planet

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Michigan Court Waives Goodbye to Subrogation Claims, Except as to Gross Negligence

    Court of Federal Claims: Upstream Hurricane Harvey Case Will Proceed to Trial

    Corrective Action Protest Grounds for GSA Schedule Federal Construction Contractors

    Federal Subcontractor Who Failed to Follow FAR Regulations Finds That “Fair” and “Just” are Not Synonymous

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    The Choice Is Yours – Or Is It? Anti-Choice-of-Laws Statutes Applicable to Construction Contracts

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment

    California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim

    Affordable Global Housing Will Cost $11 Trillion

    Termination for Convenience Clauses: Maybe More Than Just Convenience

    Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged

    Rise in Home Building Helps Other Job Sectors

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    On to Year Thirteen for Blog

    What Every Project Participant Needs to Know About Delay Claims

    EPA Expands Energy Star, Adds Indoor airPLUS

    Flint Water Crisis Prompts Call for More Federal Oversight
    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

    Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor

    August 17, 2017 —
    AB 1701 recently passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate’s Labor and Industrial Relations and Judiciary Committees. The Bill, if signed by the Governor, would create a new section in the California Labor Code (Section 218.7) making “direct contractors” – defined as a contractor “making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” – liable for wages a subcontractor or sub-subcontractor fails to pay to its employee for work included in the general contractor’s contract with the project owner. Under the new law, direct contractors would be liable for up to one year from the date of completion of the work for unpaid wages, fringe benefits, health and welfare benefits, and pension fund contributions, including interest and state tax payments owed to a subcontractor’s employee. The employee, however, would not be able to recover penalties or liquidated damages from the general contractor. AB 1701 would give the employee, Labor Commissioner, or a joint labor-management cooperation committee the right to enforce the direct contractor’s liability through a civil action. It would also extend to third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or contributions on the employee’s behalf. Pursuant to the proposed language of the new statute, a prevailing plaintiff in such an action would be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Although Labor Code § 218.7 would impose certain obligations on the subcontractor to provide the direct contractor with relevant project and payroll records, the subcontractor’s failure to comply with those obligations does not relieve the direct contractor from liability. Impact AB 1701’s apparent purpose is to protect employees, an undeniably important legislative goal. However, if passed, the bill could greatly increase general contractors’ exposure when subcontracting work and their cost of doing business. Especially because the new law would not impact existing laws requiring a direct contractor to timely pay a subcontractor. As a result, many coalitions against AB 1701 stress the halting effect this could have on the construction industry as a whole, particularly private construction, which is not as heavily regulated as public works. CGDRB will continue to monitor this Bill and provide updates as developments occur. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    America’s Factories Weren’t Built to Endure This Many Hurricanes

    November 05, 2024 —
    America’s factories aren’t built for the current cascade of extreme weather events. Dozens of industrial sites were in the zone of impact as Hurricane Milton slammed into Florida’s West Coast this week, including several concrete plants, speed boat manufacturing operations and facilities owned by Honeywell International Inc., Johnson Controls International Plc, General Electric Co. and Illinois Tool Works Inc., among others. Meanwhile, a Baxter International Inc. facility in Marion, North Carolina, that makes 60% of the intravenous fluids used in hospitals around the country was shuttered because of damage from Hurricane Helene just two weeks ago. Mines responsible for producing more than 80% of the world’s supply of commercial high-purity quartz in nearby Spruce Pine were also affected by severe flooding, raising the risk of disruptions to semiconductor production, which relies on the material. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brooke Sutherland, Bloomberg

    It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane . . . No, It’s a Drone. Long Awaited FAA Drone Regulations Finally Take Flight

    September 22, 2016 —
    It’s a bird. It’s a plane. No, it’s a drone. Also known as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or unmanned aircraft (UA). And, technically, they’ve been around a long time, since at least 1849 when the Australians attacked Italy with unmanned balloons loaded with explosives. Even a young Marilyn Monroe, when she was known simply as “Norma Jean,” worked at a company called Radioplane making unmanned aircrafts during World War II. Since then, as technology has advanced, which, in turn, has made the cost of older technology go down, what was once old, is now new again. Drones are making regular appearances in the movies (think the Divergent Series: Allegiant). The paparazzi (who are apparently tired of getting punched in the face) are using them. And some day, perhaps very soon, they may just be delivering your packages (think Amazon Prime Air). One of the earliest adopters of drones outside the military, however, has been the construction industry which has used drones to track the progress of construction projects and conduct site surveys such as this one showing the progress of Apple’s new campus in Cupertino[.] 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

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    October 01, 2013 —
    “We anticipate an increase in residential construction defect litigation in response to this ruling,” David Frenznic, a construction defect lawyer at Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney LLP told the Central Valley Business Times. Mr. Frenznic was responding to an August ruling by the California Court of Appeals that found that SB800 does not create the only remedy for homeowners with construction defects. “Homeowners who suffer actual damage as a result of construction defects have a choice of remedies,” said Mr. Frenznick. SB800 established a shorter statute of limitations for construction defect claims, however, “the ruling makes clear that common law claims are still governed by the longer statues of limitations.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Unthinkable Has Happened. How Should Contractors Respond?

    May 11, 2020 —
    Any construction veteran expects the economy to contract and expand. However, the global pandemic presents contractors with a challenge unlike any in recent memory. How should they respond in an environment of such uncertainty? For some perspective, I chatted with Dr. John Killingsworth, a construction management professor at Colorado State University who has conducted extensive research on how contractors can weather economic downturns. BRUCE ORR: John, let’s say you’re in IT or are a c-suite executive at a contracting firm. This event has occurred. What are some of the questions you should be asking right now? JOHN KILLINGSWORTH: For starters, we have to acknowledge that the uncertainties are so tremendous that many contractors have no choice but to be reactive in the short term. They’re literally not sure whether particular job sites will be open or closed tomorrow or whether they’ll go to work next week. They’re also looking at predictions—from highly qualified statisticians, public health officials and others—that are just all over the map due to the limited nature of the data we have at hand. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Orr, AEC Business
    Mr. Orr may be contacted at bruce@pronovos.com

    Court Holds That Trimming of Neighbor’s Trees is Not an Insured Accident or Occurrence

    June 10, 2015 —
    In Albert v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. (No. B257792, filed 4/28/15, ord. pub. 5/20/15), a California Court of Appeal held that an insured’s trimming of a neighbor’s trees which allegedly damaged the trees was not an accident or occurrence covered by her homeowners insurance, despite a mistaken and good faith belief as to where the property line lay. Ms. Albert was sued by her adjoining neighbor, who alleged damage to his property when she erected an encroaching fence and pruned nine mature olive trees on his property. The two parcels shared a reciprocal roadway easement providing for access to the main public road. At some point, Ms. Albert erected a fence that was subsequently determined to be on the neighbor’s land, and which enclosed a grove of nine mature olive trees. Ms. Albert claimed that the trees straddled the property line and were mutually owned. She pointed out that she had regularly been notified by the Los Angeles Fire Department to clear the area, and that she had been trimming the trees for years. Thus, she claimed a good faith belief that the trees were hers and that she was required to trim them. Contending that her trimming had caused severe damage by reducing the aesthetic and monetary value of the trees, the neighbor sued alleging causes of action for trespass to real property and trees; abatement of private nuisance; declaratory relief; and for quiet title. He sought treble damages under Civil Code sections 733 and 3346, for injury to timber or trees. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Liebherr Claims Crane Not Cause of Brazil Stadium Construction Accident

    February 14, 2014 —
    Crane manufacturer Liebherr said in a statement that “its crane was not the cause” of the November 2013 construction incident that killed two workers, according to KHL. Liebherr claimed that “its investigations show that the crane had no technical defects and that the ground was not sufficiently stable for crane travel with a suspended load on the day of the accident.” Liebherr “assumes that all the reports currently being prepared about the accident will not reach any different conclusions,” reported KHL. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit with Additional Million

    April 03, 2013 —
    The southern New York town of Liberty has settled a lawsuit filed by the contractor with an agreement that the school district will pay an additional $1.1 million. Darlind Construction of LaGrangeville, New York had alleged that “errors, omissions, and other defects” in the plans provided to them required additional work. The school project had previously cost the town about $36 million. Darlind Construction’s initial claim had been for $1.6 million. Funds for the settlement will come from monies appropriated for the project, most of which were contributed by the State of New York. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of