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


    Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense by U.S. News/Best Lawyers

    Pollution Exclusion Prevents Coverage for Injury Caused by Insulation

    Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Award of Attorneys’ Fees Although Defended by Principal

    Traub Lieberman Partner Rina Clemens Selected as a 2023 Florida Super Lawyers® Rising Star

    California Attempts to Tackle Housing Affordability Crisis

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (9/4/24) – DOJ Sues RealPage, Housing Sales Increase and U.S. Can’t Build Homes Fast Enough

    Hail Damage Requires Replacement of Even Undamaged Siding

    Washington State May Allow Common Negligence Claims against Construction Professionals

    Bankruptcy on a Construction Project: Coronavirus Edition

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    Some Construction Contract Basics- Necessities and Pitfalls

    Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty

    U.S. Home Sellers Return for Spring as Buyers Get Relief

    North Miami Beach Rejects as Incomplete 2nd Engineering Inspection Report From Evacuated Condo

    Apple to Open Steve Jobs-Inspired Ring-Shaped Campus in April

    Waiver Of Arbitration by Not Submitting Claim to Initial Decision Maker…Really!

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review Regarding Necessary Parties in Lien Foreclosure Actions

    Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet

    Henkels & McCoy Pays $1M in Federal Overtime-Pay Case

    Disaster-Relief Bill Stalls in Senate

    Enerpac Plays Critical Role in Industry-changing Discovery for Long Span Bridges at The University of Nebraska-Lincoln

    Chapman Glucksman Press Release

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    New Case Alert: Oregon Supreme Court Prohibits Insurer’s Attempt to Relitigate Insured’s Liability

    Broker for Homeowners Policy Has No Duty to Advise Insureds on Excess Flood Coverage

    Genuine Dispute Over Cause of Damage and Insureds’ Demolition Before Inspection Negate Bad Faith and Elder Abuse Claims

    Towards Paperless Construction: PaperLight

    Top 10 Cases of 2019

    Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

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

    The Devil is in the Details: The Texas Construction Trust Fund Pitfalls Residential Remodelers (and General Contractors) Should Avoid

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    ‘Hallelujah,’ House Finally Approves $1T Infrastructure Funding Package

    Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier

    The Greenest U.S. Cities & States

    Defining Constructive Acceleration

    Partners Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe Secure Seventh Circuit Win for Insurer Client in Late Notice Dispute

    Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Serves as Chair of the ABA Minority Trial Lawyer Committee’s Programming Subcommittee

    BWB&O ranks as a 2025 Best Law Firm by Best Lawyers®

    2019 California Construction Law Update

    Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?

    The Godfather of Solar Predicts Its Future

    Index Demonstrates Increase in Builders’ Sentiment

    UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

    Automated Weather Insurance Could Offer Help in an Increasingly Hot World

    DC Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s CERCLA Decision Regarding Hardrock Mining Industry

    Oregon Construction Firm Sued for Construction Defects

    Power to the Office Worker

    Louisiana Couple Sues over Defects in Foreclosed Home
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    CISA Clarifies – Construction is Part of Critical Infrastructure Activities

    April 20, 2020 —
    After ongoing confusion by many over whether construction should be considered part of the “essential business,” during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued an updated Coronavirus Guidance for America on March 28, 2020 to clarify construction’s critical role in supporting essential infrastructure. CISA’s initial advisory list referenced construction in regard to some areas such as energy and wastewater treatment, but it was unclear as to the whole of the construction industry. CISA’s update clarified that construction activities are included in its list of essential critical infrastructure workers. This new federal guidance should remove the ambiguity that led to varying responses by state and local officials halting some construction. The guidance clarifies that construction and related activities – including the manufacture and supply/delivery of supplies and equipment, permitting, safety, and inspections of projects – are covered as part of the critical infrastructure and economic activities. The ongoing challenge will be for construction activities to proceed in a way that protects workers and the general public from the spread of coronavirus. However, contractors are always resourceful and have been implementing safety measures effectively on projects with an unwavering commitment to safety and are ready to meet this challenge. In addition to following the guidance from the CDC, we recommend that contractors implement a comprehensive safety program for their employees as well as for all parties that come onto the jobsite. It is critical that contractors have clear a clear plan for communications with their teams to ensure compliance with the CDC recommendations. This should include what has recently become standard protocol or social distancing, not hosting large group meetings and conducting meetings online or via conference call, maintaining a six-foot distance between people, discouraging hand-shaking or other contact, not sharing tools, and sanitizing reusable PPE. Contractors also should also be sure to place safety posters about “How to Protect Yourself” where they can be readily seen and encourage staying home when sick, cough and sneeze etiquette, and hand hygiene at the entrance of a jobsite. We also recommend heightened site security including interviewing anyone coming to the jobsite. Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees and Ernest Isola, Gordon & Rees Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com Mr. Isola may be contacted at eisola@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 Not Just for Individual Homeowners Anymore?

    March 22, 2017 —
    On March 9, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals announced its decision in Broomfield Senior Living Owner, LLC v. R.G. Brinkmann Company, No. 16CA0101, 2017 COA 31 (Colo. App. Mar. 9, 2017). As a matter of first impression, the Court evaluated whether a senior living facility constitutes “residential property” protected by the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 ("HPA") provision of the Construction Defect Reform Act (CDARA). In 2007, Plaintiff Broomfield entered into a contract with Defendant Brinkmann for construction of a senior assisted and independent living facility. The contract contained warranty provisions related to the quality of construction and cautioned that Plaintiff’s failure to provide Defendant with prompt notice of any defects would result in waiver of any claim for breach. The contract also limited Defendant Brinkmann’s liability by identifying three separate accrual provisions that would determine the time period in which Plaintiff could bring a claim. The project was completed in 2009. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Stewart, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Ms. Stewart may be contacted at stewart@hhmrlaw.com

    Contractors Battle Bitter Winters at $11.8B Site C Hydro Project in Canada

    October 30, 2023 —
    Half the year spent in bone-aching cold. Soils frozen hard as concrete. Mountains of snow. A seemingly unending flow of machinery, workforce and earthen material to and from the site. A temporary city to house thousands of workers for nearly a decade. Wildfires encroaching dangerously close. Working under the ever-watchful eyes of regulators, stakeholders and environmentalists. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Keller, Engineering News-Record and Scott Blair, Engineering News-Record Mr. Keller may be contacted at kellerj@enr.com Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    After Restoring Power in North Carolina, Contractor Faces Many Claims

    August 10, 2017 —
    Having successfully helped to restore power to two North Carolina barrier islands, PCL Civil Constructors now faces the fallout from a July 27 construction incident that forced a week-long evacuation of 60,000 visitors, putting a potential multimillion-dollar dent in the region’s tourism-dependent economy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Failure to Allege Property Damage Within Policy Period Defeats Insured's Claim

    October 03, 2022 —
    The insured's inability to determine when water damage occurred meant it could not pursue claims of property damage against the insurers. Creek v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116939 (W.D. Wash. July 1, 2022). Gold Creek Condominium complex experienced water damage. The complex was completed in 1982. The owners sued State Farm and Travelers under all-risk policies when tenders for the damage were denied. In 2017, Creek hired an expert to investigate deterioration due to water intrusion. The expert noted that "water intrusion had been evident in the exterior walls, soffits, terraces, handrails and elevated entry walkways for some time." Thereafter, Creek tendered claims for property damage to State Farm and to Travelers. 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

    Benefit of the Coblentz Agreement and Consent Judgment

    August 26, 2024 —
    If you are not familiar with the concept of what is commonly known as a Coblentz agreement relative to an insurance coverage dispute, review these prior postings (here and here and here). This is a good-to-know agreement if you are a claimant and need to consider an avenue of collection if the insured’s carrier denies coverage out of the gate (meaning the carrier has denied both the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify). A recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion demonstrates the Coblentz agreement concept. In Barrs v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2024 WL 3673089 (11th Cir. 2024), an owner asserted a construction defect claim against its contractor. The owner hired the contractor to deconstruct a building and the contractor hired a demolition subcontractor. The owner noticed work was not being performed and materials (e.g., lumber) were missing; the demolition subcontractor had stolen materials. The subcontractor was terminated, and the owner claimed the contractor’s negligence allowed the theft and delayed his project. The contractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) insurer notified the insured-contractor that coverage did not exist and refused to defend the contractor. The owner sued the contractor under various theories of liability. The owner and contractor entered into a settlement agreement (i.e., the Coblentz agreement) where the contractor “admitted liability in the amount of $557,500.00….A consent judgment was entered against [the contractor] that closely tracked the settlement agreement but did not indicate which portion of the damages award was attributed to which claims. The agreement also assigned [owner] and all of [the contractor’s] rights to claim coverage and to recover available funds under [the contractor’s CGL policy].” 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

    The Real Estate Crisis in North Dakota's Man Camps

    October 02, 2015 —
    Chain saws and staple guns echo across a $40 million residential complex under construction in Williston, North Dakota, a few miles from almost-empty camps once filled with oil workers. After struggling to house thousands of migrant roughnecks during the boom, the state faces a new real-estate crisis: The frenzied drilling that made it No. 1 in personal-income growth and job creation for five consecutive years hasn’t lasted long enough to support the oil-fueled building explosion. Civic leaders and developers say many new units were already in the pipeline, and they anticipate another influx of workers when oil prices rise again. But for now, hundreds of dwellings approved during the heady days are rising, skeletons of wood and cement surrounded by rolling grasslands, with too few residents who can afford them. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Oldham, Bloomberg

    The New “White Collar” Exemption Regulations

    August 19, 2015 —
    This summer the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division issued proposed changes to the white-collar overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The white collar exemptions include the executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer employee exemptions. The focus of the proposed regulations is to increase the salary level required to qualify for the exemption from $23,660 per year to $50,440 per year. The DOL predicts this will cause employers to change the exempt status of nearly 5 million workers who are currently exempt from overtime requirements to non-exempt status – requiring the payment of overtime. Current Regulations Under today’s regulations, the white collar exemption applies to employees who are paid at least $455 per week ($23,660 per year) and who customarily and regularly perform any one or more of the exempt duties or responsibilities of an executive, administrative or professional employee. Proposed Changes The most significant change is the sizeable increase in the minimum salary requirements for the exemptions. The proposed regulations more than double the current minimum salary of $455 per week to $921. This corresponds to the 40th percentile of weekly earnings projected for the first quarter of 2016, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The DOL also proposes annual adjustments to the minimum salary requirements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com