BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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


    McCarthy Workers Test Fall-Protection Harnesses Designed to Better Fit Women

    'There Was No Fighting This Fire,' California Survivor Says

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2021

    New Opportunities for “Small” Construction Contractors as SBA Adjusts Its Size Standards Again Due to Unprecedented Inflation

    President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry

    Don’t Kick the Claim Until the End of the Project: Timely Give Notice and Preserve Your Claims on Construction Projects

    Kahana Feld LLP Senior Attorney Rachael Marvin and Partner Dominic Donato Obtain Complete Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Labor Law Claims on Summary Judgment

    The “Builder’s Remedy” Looms Over Bay Area Cities

    The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

    No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims under Kentucky Law

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    Managing Infrastructure Projects with Infrakit – Interview with Teemu Kivimäki

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

    Another Colorado Construction Defect Reform Bill Dies

    Housing in U.S. Cools as Rate Rise Hits Sales: Mortgages

    Consider the Risks Associated with an Exculpatory Clause

    Effectively Managing Project Closeout: It Ends Where It Begins

    Construction Defect Specialist Joins Kansas City Firm

    OSHA Reinforces COVID Guidelines for the Workplace

    Effective Zoning Reform Isn’t as Simple as It Seems

    Keep Your Construction Claims Alive in Crazy Economic Times

    A Court-Side Seat: Environmental Developments on the Ninth Circuit

    Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District

    Sources of Insurance Recovery for Emerging PFAS Claims

    Construction Lien Does Not Include Late Fees Separate From Interest

    A Court-Side Seat: “Inholdings” Upheld, a Pecos Bill Come Due and Agency Actions Abound

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

    Parties Can Agree to Anything In A Settlement Agreement………Or Can They?

    No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations

    Construction Contract Clauses That May or May Not Have Your Vote – Part 3

    Banks Rejected by U.S. High Court on Mortgage Securities Suits

    Vinci Will Build $580M Calgary Project To Avoid Epic Flood Repeat

    Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued

    California Supreme Court Finds that the Notice-Prejudice Rule Applicable to Insurance is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State

    Heat Stress Deaths Show Europe Isn’t Ready for Climate Change

    Bay Area Firm Offers Construction Consulting to Remodels

    Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame

    Contractors Should Be Optimistic that the Best Value Tradeoff Process Will Be Employed by Civilian Agencies

    Safe Commercial Asbestos-Removal Practices

    Bad News for Buyers: U.S. Mortgage Rates Hit Highest Since 2014

    Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?

    Property Owner Found Liable for Injuries to Worker of Unlicensed Contractor, Again

    Is Arbitration Always the Answer?

    Professor Senet’s List of 25 Decisions Every California Construction Lawyer Should Know:

    New Recommendations for Healthy and Safe Housing Conditions

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - The New Science of Jury Trial Advocacy

    Unpaid Subcontractor Walks Off the Job and Wins

    Fifth Circuit Confirms: Insurer Must Defend Despite Your Work/Your Product Exclusion

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely
    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

    U.S. Supreme Court Weighs in on Construction Case

    January 13, 2014 —
    The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on a construction case (Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v United States District Court for the Western District of Texas)—an occurrence newsworthy of itself, according to The California Construction Law Blog. Large general contractors may benefit by the court’s decision regarding “the enforceability of forum selection clauses.” According to the blog, the U. S. Supreme Court set three standards, “which, together, strongly support the enforceability of forum selection clauses: (1) The party defying a forum selection clause bears the burden of proof…. (2) The inconvenience to the party defying a forum selection clause bears no weight…. [and] (3) The law of the selected forum applies when determining whether to transfer a case.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Jersey Supreme Court Holding Impacts Allocation of Damages in Cases Involving Successive Tortfeasors

    March 28, 2022 —
    Newark, N.J. (March 21, 2022) - Late in 2021, the Supreme Court of New Jersey addressed the issue of allocating damages in personal injury cases in which the plaintiff asserts claims against successive tortfeasors, such as medical malpractice in the treatment of a slip and fall injury caused by negligence. The decision in Glassman v. Friedel, 249 N.J. 199 (2021) overruled and replaced the long-held principles established in Ciluffo v. Middlesex General Hospital, 146 N.J. Super. 478 (App. Div. 1977) regarding successive liability. Ciluffo held that, when an initial tortfeasor settles before trial, the non-settling defendants in a successive tort were entitled to a pro tanto credit for the settlement amount against any damages assessed against them. The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division in 2020, and the Supreme Court of New Jersey last year, abandoned that framework for one more consistent with statutory contribution law in the Garden State. In Glassman v. Friedel, 465 N.J. Super. 436 (App. Div. 2020), the Appellate Division held that the application of the principles in Ciluffo in a negligence case has no support in modern jurisprudence, thus limiting its application. It rejected the holding in Ciluffo in light of the state legislature’s enactment of the Comparative Negligence Act, which requires juries to apportion damages between successive events and apportion fault among the parties responsible for each event. The appellate division went on to hold that a non-settling, successive tortfeasor may present proofs at trial as to the negligence of the settling tortfeasor, and that the burden of proof as to the initial tortfeasor’s negligence being the proximate cause of the second causative event indeed lies on the non-settling defendant. In sum, the appellate division in Glassman established steps the jury can use to determine successive tortfeasor liability, but largely treated it as one, attenuated incident. Reprinted courtesy of Thomas Regan, Lewis Brisbois and Karley Kamaris, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Regan may be contacted at Thomas.Regan@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Kamaris may be contacted at Karley.Kamaris@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Aging-in-Place Features Becoming Essential for Many Home Buyers

    March 12, 2014 —
    With the rising number of Americans over the age of sixty-five, there is an “upswing” in demand of “aging-in-place home features,” according to Big Builder. Big Builder also noted seven accessible features that homebuyers identified when surveyed by The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). A couple of the features listed were “doorways at least three feet wide” and “non-slip floors.” The survey results were reported in What Home Buyers Really Want, released in May 2013 by the NAHB. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

    August 04, 2011 —

    Recently, in Caribou Ridge Homes, LLC v. Zero Energy, LLC, et al., Case No. 10CV1094, Boulder County District Court Judge Ingrid S. Bakke entered a ruling and order on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Determination of Question of Law Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 56(h) on Issue of Damages. The Order found that the Plaintiff was not a homeowner intended to be protected by the Homeowner Protection Act (the “HPA”) and thus could not pursue its claims for consequential damages against Defendant.

    By way of background, on June 18, 2008, Plaintiff Caribou Ridge Homes, LLC (“Caribou”) entered into a Standard Form Agreement Between Owner and Contractor AIA Document A114-2001 (the “Contract”) with Defendant Zero Energy, LLC (“Zero Energy”). Plaintiff hired Zero Energy to serve as a general contractor for the construction of a single-family home in the Caribou Ridge subdivision in Nederland, Colorado. A provision in the contract contained a mutual waiver of consequential damages (“Waiver”).

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Chinese Brooklyn-to-Los Angeles Plans Surge: Real Estate

    April 01, 2014 —
    It took just one 15-minute phone call in July to persuade Ifei Chang to join Shanghai-based developer Greenland Holding Group Co. and lead a U.S. expansion. Within three months, she was running $6 billion of projects as part of a record push by Chinese investors into American property. Greenland reached a preliminary agreement in October to buy a 70 percent stake in the $5 billion Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn, New York. That followed a July deal to acquire a $1 billion residential-and-entertainment project in downtown Los Angeles. Chang, who took charge of that site upon arriving in the U.S., is now on the hunt for more investments. “In China, you climb a ladder where everything is floating and moving so fast,” Chang, 49, said in an interview at her sparsely furnished 46th-floor L.A. office overlooking the empty lot where the Metropolis project will be built. “We come from a country of 1.4 billion people and a lot of economic growth. This kind of project and investment speed is very normal in China. That’s why we are so confident we will deliver this project.” Greenland, like other Chinese companies, is committing to a growing number of multibillion-dollar developments outside of its home market. Chinese investments in U.S. commercial properties jumped almost 10-fold last year from 2012, with Manhattan the biggest area for purchases, followed by other New York City boroughs and Los Angeles, according to research firm Real Capital Analytics Inc. Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadja Brandt and John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg

    Engineer TRC Fends Off Lawsuits After Merger

    August 17, 2017 —
    In the wake of its merger with an investment fund, TRC Cos. has been busy swatting away pesky shareholder lawsuits driven by law firms who specialize in such litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

    February 19, 2019 —
    The Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision yesterday finding no coverage for fire damage to a building is a cautionary tale for companies acquiring other companies. Erie Ins. Exch. v. EPC MD 15, LLC, 2019 WL 238168 (Va. Jan. 17, 2019). In that case, Erie Insurance issued a property insurance policy to EPC. The policy covered EPC only and did not cover any subsidiaries of EPC. EPC then acquired the sole member interest in Cyrus Square, LLC. Following the acquisition, fire damaged a building that Cyrus Square owned. EPC sought coverage under its property insurance policy. Because the policy did not cover Cyrus Square, EPC argued that a provision extending coverage to “newly acquired buildings” applied, contending that EPC had newly acquired Cyrus Square’s building by virtue of becoming the sole member interest in the LLC. Based on the law relative to LLCs and its interpretation of the policy, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled against EPC. It found that although EPC had acquired Cyrus Square, it had not “newly acquired” the building and so the “newly acquired buildings” coverage extension did not apply. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of