BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windows
    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


    Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony

    OSHA Releases COVID-19 Guidance

    Maritime Law: An Albatross for Contractors Navigating Marine Construction

    UCF Sues Architects and Contractors Over Stadium Construction Defects

    Mitigating Mold Exposure in Manufacturing and Multifamily Buildings

    Fire Damages Unfinished Hospital Tower at NYU Langone Medical Center

    Hydrogen Powers Its Way from Proof of Concept to Reality in Real Estate

    New York Supreme Court Building Opening Delayed Again

    Recycling Our Cities, One Building at a Time

    Maine Court Allows $1B Hydropower Transmission Project to Proceed

    Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    California Pipeline Disaster Brings More Scandal for PG&E

    Colorado Trench Collapse Kills Two

    “Pay When Paid” Provisions May Not Be Dead, at Least Not Yet

    Ex-Pemex CEO Denies Allegations of Involvement in Brazil Scandal

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

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Abandons "Integrated Systems Analysis" for Determining Property Damage

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/13/22

    Caltrans to Speak before California Senate regarding Bay Bridge Expansion

    NYC’s Developers Plow Ahead With Ambitious Plans to Reshape City

    In One of the First Civil Jury Trials to Proceed Live in Los Angeles Superior Court During Covid, Aneta Freeman Successfully Prevailed on Behalf of our Client and Obtained a Directed Verdict and Non-Suit

    Force Majeure Under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stuck on You”

    White and Williams Celebrates 125th Anniversary

    OSHA Issues Fines for Fatal Building Collapse in Philadelphia

    Employees Versus Independent Contractors

    Measure Of Damages for Breach of Construction Contract

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    Chinese Lead $92 Billion of U.S. Home Sales to Foreigners

    The Fifth Circuit, Applying Texas Law, Strikes Down Auto Exclusion

    Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 49 White and Williams Attorneys

    Safe Commercial Asbestos-Removal Practices

    Can I Record a Lis Pendens in Arizona if the Lawsuit is filed Another Jurisdiction?

    Beware of Design Pitfalls In Unfamiliar Territory

    Sales Pickup Shows Healing U.S. Real Estate Market

    White Collar Overtime Regulations Temporarily Blocked

    A Compilation of Quirky Insurance Claims

    Colorado House Bill 19-1170: Undefined Levels of Mold or Dampness Can Make a Leased Residential Premises Uninhabitable

    24th Annual West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar A Success

    Updated 3/13/20: Coronavirus is Here: What Does That Mean for Your Project and Your Business?

    New York Appellate Court Restores Insurer’s Right to Seek Pro Rata Allocation of Settlements Between Insured and Uninsured Periods

    Virtual Jury Trials: The Next Wave of Remote Legal Practice

    Bar to Raise on Green Standard

    US Supreme Court Orders All Mountain Valley Gas Line Work to Proceed

    COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

    New York Instructs Property Carriers to Advise Insureds on Business Interruption Coverage

    Connecticut Federal District Court Keeps Busy With Collapse Cases

    At Least 46 Killed in Taiwanese Apartment Building Inferno
    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

    Remote Work Issues to Consider in Light of COVID-19

    March 23, 2020 —
    Many employers have elected to implement a remote work policy in light of the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak. If you are one of them, you should consider the following as you transition your workforce to a remote working environment. Preliminary Steps The first step prior to implementation is ensuring that you have sufficient technological infrastructure and capabilites. You should assess what types of equipment (e.g., desktop computers, laptops, phones, printers, and office supplies) your employees will need to work remotely, and ensure that there is sufficient inventory and that employees can gain access to the equipment. You should also confirm that you have data security measures in place and brief employees on best practices for security and protection of data. You should refer employees to your organization’s technology policy regarding the safeguarding of data. If none exist, you should strongly consider creating and implementing one. One of the more important aspects of any policy is restrictions on where employees may work remotely. For example, some employers prohibit employees from working remotely on public wifi networks due to security concerns. Whether these or other policies are right for your organization depends on the nature of your work and data, security measures you have in place, and your risk tolerance. Beyond technology issues, you should prepare a checklist of necessary work items and materials that employees will need to perform their jobs remotely. You should also clearly communicate to employees which items may be removed from the workplace and taken home and which should remain. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Philip K. Lem, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Lem may be contacted at pkl@paynefears.com

    California’s Right to Repair Act not an Exclusive Remedy

    August 20, 2014 —
    Karen L. Moore of Low, Ball & Lynch in JD Supra Business Advisor analyzed “two decisions holding that California’s Right to Repair Act ('SB 800') is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have also resulted in property damage.” If property damage occurs due to construction defects, a homeowner “may also pursue common law tort causes of action.” After providing a brief background of California’s SB 800 and Aas v. Superior Court (which precluded the Right to Repair Act), Moore discussed the results of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Broofield Crystal Cove, LLC, followed by a review of Burch v. Superior Court. Moore commented that “[t]hese two cases will likely be used by homeowners to avoid application of the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

    February 10, 2020 —
    On November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register. Background As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency. In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective. 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

    Leaning San Francisco Tower Seen Sinking From Space

    November 30, 2016 —
    San Francisco (AP) -- Engineers in San Francisco have tunneled underground to try and understand the sinking of the 58-story Millennium Tower. Now comes an analysis from space. The European Space Agency has released detailed data from satellite imagery that shows the skyscraper in San Francisco's financial district is continuing to sink at a steady rate — and perhaps faster than previously known. The luxury high-rise that opened its doors in 2009 has been dubbed the Leaning Tower of San Francisco. It has sunk about 16 inches into landfill and is tilting several inches to the northwest. A dispute over the building's construction in the seismically active city has spurred numerous lawsuits involving the developer, the city and owners of its multimillion dollar apartments. Engineers have estimated the building is sinking at a rate of about 1-inch per year. The Sentinel-1 twin satellites show almost double that rate based on data collected from April 2015 to September 2016. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Value in Recording Lien within Effective Notice of Commencement

    August 03, 2020 —
    Construction lien priority is no joke! This is why a lienor wants to record its construction lien within an effective notice of commencement. A lien recorded within an effective notice of commencement relates back in time from a priority standpoint to the date the notice of commencement was recorded. A lienor that records a lien wants to ensure its lien is superior, and not inferior, to other encumbrances. An inferior lien or encumbrance may not provide much value if there is not sufficient equity in the property. Plus, an inferior lien or encumbrance can be foreclosed. An example of the importance of lien priority can be found in the recent decision of Edward Taylor Corp. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 45 Fla.L.Weekly D1447b (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). In this case, a contractor recorded a notice of commencement for an owner. While an owner is required to sign the notice of commencement that the contractor usually records, in this case, the owner did not sign the notice of commencement. Shortly after, the owner’s lender recorded a mortgage and then had the owner sign a notice of commencement and this notice of commencement was also recorded. When there is a construction lender, the lender always wants to make sure its mortgage is recorded first—before any notice of commencement—for purposes of priority and has the responsibility to ensure the notice of commencement is recorded. Here, the lender apparently did not realize the contractor had already recorded a notice of commencement at the time it recorded its mortgage. 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

    Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

    June 18, 2014 —
    The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, determined there was no coverage for construction defects under New York or New Jersey law. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Turner Constr. Co., 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3546 (N.Y. App. Div. May 15, 2014). The property owner retained Turner Construction to serve as the general contractor. Turner subcontracted with Permasteelisa North America Corporation to design and build the exterior wall, a "curtain wall," which consisted of granite and glass. A segment of the pipe rail system fell to the street from the eighth floor of the building. An investigation determined that more than 20% of the pipe rail connections surveyed did not conform to the building plans. Additional problems included inconsistencies in the method of rail attachment, bent brackets on the pipe rail system, cracked glass louvers, cracked glass panels, and water infiltration. 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

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/13/22

    April 25, 2022 —
    Phishing schemes target the mortgage industry, housing prices rise in Europe as Ukrainian refugees flee from their home country, the SEC announces new climate change regulations that will impact commercial real estate, and more. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Janus v. AFSCME

    July 18, 2018 —
    On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Janus v. AFSCME1. By a 5-4 vote, SCOTUS ruled that public employee unions cannot require non-members to pay union dues, even if those employees are benefiting from the services provided by the union. 28 states already had “right-to-work” laws on the books, meaning that unions in those states were already precluded from collecting fees from non-union members. This ruling makes that ban a national standard. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Foltz, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Foltz may be contacted at rfoltz@grsm.com