BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering 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


    COVID-19 Information and Resources

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Cover Collapse Fails

    High Attendance Predicted for West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 5: Valuation of Loss, Sublimits, and Amount of Potential Recovery

    Common Flood Insurance Myths and how Agents can Debunk Them

    Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    ASCE Statement on Passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    Construction Resumes after Defects

    Town Sues over Defective Work on Sewer Lines

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    More on Fraud, Opinions and Contracts

    Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    Discussion of History of Construction Defect Litigation in California

    10 Haight Lawyers Recognized in Best Lawyers in America© 2022 and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2022

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

    Court Makes an Unsettling Inference to Find that the Statute of Limitations Bars Claims Arising from a 1997 Northridge Earthquake Settlement

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    New ConsensusDocs 242 Design Professional Change Order Form Helps Facilitate Compensation for Changes in Design Services

    Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.

    Ignoring Employee ADA Accommodation Requests Can Be Costly – A Cautionary Tale

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    Homebuilders Offer Hope for U.K. Economy

    Not to Miss at This Year’s Archtober Festival

    How Berger’s Peer Review Role Figures In Potential Bridge Collapse Settlement

    Rhode Island Closes One Bridge and May Have Burned Others with Ensuing Lawsuit

    The Ghosts of Baha Mar: How a $3.5 Billion Paradise Went Bust

    ISO’s Flood Exclusion Amendments and Hurricane Ian Claims

    Potential Coverage Issues Implicated by the Champlain Towers Collapse

    Ohio Court Refuses to Annualize Multi-Year Policies’ Per Occurrence Limits

    Funding the Self-Insured Retention (SIR)

    New Standard Addresses Wind Turbine Construction Safety Requirements and Identifies Hazards

    The Peak of Hurricane Season Is Here: How to Manage Risks Before They Manage You

    U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 43 White and Williams Lawyers

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Agent May Be Liable for Failing to Submit Claim

    “Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

    Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

    Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings

    Indemnity: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You!

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

    Hudson River PCB Cleanup Lands Back in Court

    Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds Defendant Has the Burden of Offering Alternative Measure of Damages to Prove that Plaintiff’s Measure of Damages is Unreasonable

    Safe Commercial Asbestos-Removal Practices

    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: TOM NOCAR

    Want to Stay Up on Your Mechanic’s Lien Deadlines? Write a Letter or Two

    Top 10 OSHA Violations For The Construction Industry In 2023

    Subcontractors Aren’t Helpless
    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. Leveraging 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

    Insurer Must Defend and Indemnify Construction Defect Claims Under Iowa Law

    February 23, 2017 —
    Applying Iowa law, the federal district court found that the insurer had to defend and indemnify construction defect claims for damage to property caused by the insured's subcontractors. Van Der Weide v. Cincinnati Ins., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4469 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 12, 2017). Van Der Weide contracted with Bouma & Company, Inc. to construct a house in 1996. Before construction began, Bouma purchased a CGL policy and a separate umbrella policy from Cincinnati, which were in effect from January 30, 1996 to January 30, 1999. Bouma used various subcontractors to build the home, including Elkato Masonry, which did the brick veneer and masonry work. The house was completed in February 1998 and Van Der Weide moved in during August 1998. 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

    Appellate Court reverses district court’s finding of alter ego in Sedgwick Properties Development Corporation v. Christopher Hinds (2019WL2865935)

    August 13, 2019 —
    Division V of the Colorado Court of Appeals addressed, for the first time, corporate veil-piercing in the context of a single-member, single-purpose LLC that is managed under a contract by another company. On July 3, 2019, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Honorable Ross B. Buchannan, Denver District Court Judge (17CA2102), who held that Plaintiff/Appellee Christopher Hinds satisfied the elements required to pierce the corporate veil of Sedgwick Properties Development Corporation (“Sedgwick”). Background Defendant 1950 Logan, LLC (“1950 Logan”) was the developer of a building located at 1950 Logan Street, in Denver, called The Tower on the Park (“Project”), which contained 141 individually owned condominium units. The Project was completed in 2006. 1950 Logan was a single-purpose entity created for the construction of the Project, which is a common practice in the construction industry. After the units were sold in 2006, the LLC wrapped up operations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

    A Court-Side Seat: A Poultry Defense, a Houston Highway and a CERCLA Consent Decree that Won’t Budge

    March 22, 2021 —
    February saw the usual array of significant environmental decisions and federal regulatory notices. THE FEDERAL COURTS U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Luminant Generation v. EPA The court will be grappling with a difficult venue case governed by the Clean Air Act (42 USC Section 7607(b)). In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided the case of Luminant Generation v. EPA (714 F. 3d 841), in which the court upheld the affirmative defenses that were made part of the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) and which applied to certain unpermitted emissions from regulated sources during periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction. These defenses were challenged in the Fifth Circuit and were rejected. On the national stage, EPA has been involved in litigation over these affirmative defenses and recently excluded from a “SIP Call” the Texas program, which was carved out. This EPA decision is being challenged in the DC Circuit (see Case number 20-1115),with the State of Texas arguing as an intervenor that any issues involving Texas belong in the Fifth Circuit, and not in the DC Circuit because the Act allows regional issues to be decided in the regional federal courts. 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

    Commonwealth Court Strikes Blow to Philly Window and Door Ordinance

    January 05, 2017 —
    On December 22, 2016, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued an important opinion that has flown under the radar somewhat. The case Rufo v. Board of Licenses and Inspection Review, invalidates a major portion of Philadelphia’s so called windows and doors ordinance, which requires owners of vacant properties to install glass windows and doors with frames on vacant properties. A copy of the opinion can be found here. (I only learned about the case because of a tweet by a litigator with the pro-freedom group the Institute for Justice.) The Windows and Doors Ordinance The case concerns Section 306.2 of the Property Maintenance Code which requires “the owner of a vacant building that is a blighting influence, as defined in this subcode, [to] secure all spaces designed as windows with windows that have frames and glazing and all entryways with doors.” Property owners found in violation of the ordinance can face stiff fines. Property owners are subject to a daily fine for each door and window in violation of the Ordinance. The fine is $300 per window or door. However, because most vacant properties have multiple windows and doors the fines can add up exponentially. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    What Should Business Owners Do If a Customer Won’t Pay

    January 02, 2024 —
    It should be simple: you provide a service, and your customer pays you for that service. Unfortunately, it is not always so simple. Not getting paid for your work can be one of the most frustrating issues, especially for small businesses. It also does not take much for money matters to lead to larger disputes. So, what should small business owners do in these cases? 1. Start with a reminder notice Most sources, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, agree that business owners should not begin by escalating the situation. Take time to review and fully understand the circumstances of this individual case. Then, begin with resending the invoice or sending reminders to pay. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
    Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

    French Government Fines National Architects' Group $1.6M Over Fee-Fixing

    December 09, 2019 —
    The French government’s anti-trust agency has fined the national architects’ registration group and four regional councils $1.64 million (€1.5 million) for price-fixing design fees on public works. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Project Labor Agreements Will Now Be Required for Large-Scale Federal Construction Projects

    February 14, 2022 —
    On February 4, 2022, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects (EO), which will require the use of project labor agreements (PLAs) on large-scale federal construction projects with a total estimated cost of $35 million or more unless a senior official within the agency grants an exception. Agencies also may require the use of PLAs on projects that are less than $35 million. While the EO is effective immediately, it will only apply to solicitations issued on or after the effective date of final regulations issued by the FAR Council. The FAR Council has 120 days to propose regulations implementing the EO. Often there is a significant period of time between the publication of proposed regulations, evaluation of public comments, and publication of final regulations. Reprinted courtesy of Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Supreme Court Building Opening Delayed Again

    September 24, 2014 —
    SI Live reported that the opening of the new state Supreme Court building in St. George, New York is delayed again due to problems with the air-conditioning and elevator systems. Delay, however, is not new to this project, which was originally expected to be completed over a decade ago. Initial delay was introduced “with the finding of remains from a 19th-century burial ground at the site, a former municipal parking lot, and more recently, with construction set-backs and other tie-ups,” according to SI Live. When completed, the new “building will boast 14 courtrooms, jury assembly, hearing and deliberation rooms, judges' chambers and court offices. There will also be holding cells for prisoners.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of